The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 01011977 - Res 78/318 East Cty GPA 1977 East County General Pian (amendment to county genera plan. ) Maio STORED: REEL # BOX # -.------- w Ck- s A) � M etic� rneAv 0000 k } bra 'r9� r CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Robert I. Schroder, Chairman Eric H. Hasseltine, Vice Chairman Warren N. Boggess Nancy C. Fohden James P. Kenny Arthur G. Will, County Administrator CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Donald E. Anderson, Chairman William V. Walton III, Vice Chairman Albert R. Compaglia William L. Milano Carolyn D. Phillips Jack Stoddard Andrew H. Young Anthony A. Dehaesus, Director of Planning 0000" r A draft proposal of the East County Area General Plan was prepared by the East County Area General Plan Committee with the assistance of the Contra Costa County Planning Department. The citizen's committee includes the following persons: Stanley Planchon, Chairman John Bloomfield, Residential Subcommittee Chairman Arthur E. Honegger, Community Facilities Subcommittee,Chairman Sheldon G. Moore, Transportation Subcommittee Chairman Ronald Nunn, Agricultural Subcommittee Chairman William Snow, Commerce and Industry Subcommittee Chairman Gene Stoneborger, Recreation Subcommittee Chairman Evo Baldocchi Tiny Bettencourt Milford L. Beutler William Bunn Ernest Burroughs Leonard Celoni Joseph Cunningham Robert Dal Porto Joanne Dean Lucy Delaney . } Gerti Del Barber Charles C. Duffy, M.D. Hasten England Leonard Gerry Carl Hanson Jack Hernandez Lee Laird, Jr. Paul Lamborn Robert Lasley Kenneth Lee Richard Lewis Ernest Luna Ray Ramirez OOC" i TABLE OF CONTENTS i Page INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND FOR PLANNING 3 Development Trends 3 Population Growth 3 Environmental Factors 4 GOALS AND POLICIES 7 THE GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS I 1 Land Use Element 12 Housing Element 34 Circulation Element 34 Open Space and Conservation Element 38 Community Facilities Element 39 Safety Element 49 Seismic Safety Element 50 Noise Element 50 IMPLEMENTATION 51 APPENDIX A 55 APPENDIX B 61 APPENDIX C 65 0000" TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendix Tables APPENDIX A 55 Table A-1, East County General Plan Population By Age Group 56 Table A-2, East County General Plan Population Composition by Race 56 Table A-3, East County General Plan Summary of Housing Statistics 57 Table A-4, East County General Plan Housing Inventory 58 Table A-5, East County General Plan Poverty Level And Housing Indicators 59 Table A-6, East County General Plan Contra Costa Housing Authority Units 59 APPENDIX B 61 Table B-1, East County General Plan Existing Land Use 62 Table B-2, East County General Plan Agriculture Core Area Prime Soils 63 APPENDIX C 65 Table C-1, East County Area General Plan Existing School Facilities 66 Table C-2, East County General Plan Land Use 67 Table C-3, East County General Plan Land Use on a Community Basis 68 ovoo INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Area Plan is to revise the existing General Plan of Contra Costa County, as it pertains to the easterly portion of the county generally defined as being east of Bridgehead Road, Deer Valley Road and Vasco Road, as shown on the Location Map. This portion of Contra Costa County has long been a rural agricultural area experiencing only limited demand for urban growth. However, in the past several years the demand for the subdivision of agricultural lands has been on the increase, thus producing a growth pattern lacking appropriate services. The process of premature subdivision has caused many instances of dividing prime agricultural lands into smaller parcels which can not be farmed economically, thereby depriving the region and the state of food and fiber production and putting additional economic pressure on nearby agricultural holdings, while rendering the provision of services more costly and inefficient. Attempts to slow the trend toward the division of agricultural lands and to preserve prime land for agricultural production, caused the establishment of an East County Reserve Area designation in the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan. The Reserve Area status was established until the community and the County could jointly develop an appropriate Area Plan to guide future development in East County. The East County General Plan Review Committee, a citizen advisory group, was appointed by the Board of Supervisors to develop an Area Plan for the East County Planning Area with the assistance of the County Planning Department. This Area Plan is the result of over two years of work. It consists of both text and maps, which together constitute an amendment to the County General Plan and its component elements. The broad objectives of this General Plan are: To establish a pattern of land uses which will promote a high degree of health, safety and efficiency for the well being of the East County area. To provide for the maintenance and viability of the agricultural community. To relate new development directly to the provision of community facilities necessary to service that development. To update and bring together the various land use elements of the General Plan for the area. To integrate selected special purpose elements into one General Plan document. The basic concepts underlying the Plan are simple; in order to preserve the best agricultural areas for intensive agricultural uses, such as truck farming, or- chards, and row crops, the prime agricultural soils are delineated and designated for continued agricultural use, while on less desirable and productive soils other land uses are also permitted. Recreational uses are permitted in the proximity 06vo 00 of the recreational waterways, while residential uses at suburban densities are delineated in clusters where major circulation elements, and water and sewer services are either already available or can be logically extended. In addition, safety considerations relating to flooding and other natural hazards are taken into account in determining the location and intensities of future land uses. The resulting Area Plan accommodates not only the 1975 population of approxi- mately 15,000, but also provides for the additional 10,000 persons expected to move into the Planning Area by 1990. The holding capacity (the population which could be accommodated pursuant to the Plan policies) exceeds 68,000. This excess of capacity beyond anticipated growth demand allows a very substantial margin for alternative development choices. It is _expected that the Area Plan will be reviewed periodically, and revised if necessary. 2 BACKGROUND FOR PLANNING This Area Plan is based on data in a series of six background reports which were prepared to provide the East County General Plan Review Committee with information required for its work. Subjects covered in detail included population characteristics, community facilities, physical resources, transportation, eco- nomic characteristics, and land use and zoning. The reports are on file with the County Planning Department. DEVELOPMENT TRENDS The Planning Area covers '184 square miles (25.5 percent of the total County area) and contains a population of approximately 15,000 (in 1975) at a density of 75.6 persons per square mile. This low population density, combined with moderate population growth, characterizes the generally rural-suburban nature of the area. The population is largely concentrated in small communities (Brentwood, Byron, Bethel Island, Oakley, Discovery Bay and Knightsen) primar- ily oriented to Highway 4. POPULATION GROWTH Contra Costa County as a whole experienced rapid growth during the period of 1940 to 1975, while East County experienced a slow but gradual growth during the some period. The County as a whole grew rapidly from a pre-war population of 100,500 to a 1975 population of 582,829 persons, an increase of 480 percent. Over the same thirty-five year period, East County population increased from 5,606 to 15,228, a 172 percent increase. ' The Planning Area consistently exhibits a higher population of elderly residents than the County as a whole. It also contains a minority population of approximately 17.9 percent, largely of Mexican and Mexican-American ethnic which is higher than the percentage of the County as V whole. Population estimates for the next ten years, utilizing various growth rate assumptions well in excess of past experience, indicate that between 18,000 and 25,000 persons would reasonably be expected to reside in the East County Planning Area by 1990. These estimates are on the high side, reflecting the increased growth rate of the early 1970's. Brentwood, .the largest and only incorporated community in the Planning Area, was established in 1874 and incorporated in 1948. Historically, community growth in the Planning Area has been gradual, with no significant peaks at any one time. This gradual growth of the Planning Area as a whole is reflected in Brentwood; however, the city is experiencing an increased growth rate. It contained 3,700 persons in 1975, an increase of 38.2 percent since 1970, brought about through both annexations and development. Oakley, Byron and KnightsenI were developed as railroad-oriented communities in the late 1800's. In 1975 Oakley had a population of approximately 3,000 and Byron of approximately 450. Both communities have experienced fluctuations in population over time and appear to be experiencing an upswing at the present 3 IBoundaries as defined by the Contra Costa County 1975 Census. time. The 1975 population for Knightsen was 91. Bethel Island, basically a recreation and retirement community, had a 1975 population of 1,400 persons. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS CLIMATE The climate of the East County Planning Area is a modified Mediterranean type. The winters are mild but rainy and the summers are moderate to hot and subject to drought. The region's topography causes a considerable variation in rainfall and temperature in different portions of the area with rainfall ranging from 17 inches in the southwest hills to less than 12 inches in the eastern Delta. Approximately 90 percent of the precipitation falls in the months of October through April. The climate is conducive to productive agricultural operations. GEOLOGY AND SOILS The geologic "formations" exposed in the East County Planning Area differ in age, origin, rock characteristics, and engineering properties. The southwest portion of the Planning Area is rugged and hilly, falling off into the valley floor to the east. Dominating the western fringe of Planning Area are the hills of the Diablo Range. The gentle to moderate slopes (5 to 15 percent) of the foothills have characteristics similar to valley soils and the steeper upland slopes. Generally speaking, grazing is the predominant use of this transitional zone with a few orchards existing on the shallower slopes. Along the eastern perimeter of the Planning Area are found the Delta Islands. The Planning Area contains approximately 17,000 acres of prime agricultural soils (Class I and 11--SCS Soil Survey). They are intensively farmed, mainly supporting orchards, annual row crops, alfalfa, and other pasture crops. These soil types encompass most of the area around Brentwood extending basically in southerly, easterly, and northerly directions. Most soils in the Planning Area are suited to some form of agricultural pursuit. The exceptions are the marsh areas, rock outcrops, the dense oak woodlands found on some north-facing slopes, quarry sites, and those areas which are now developed into urban uses. FLOOD PLAIN Approximately 43,000 acres of the Planning Area, the entire north and east fringe of the Planning Area, fall within the 100 year flood plain. Thousands of acres of the Delta lowlands and islands are protected from floods and high tides by a network of man-made levees, some of which are over 100 years old. Many of the levees are in poor condition and need to be rehabilitated. Land subsidence, which results in ever-increasing pressures on the levees, further 4 compounds the problem. Consequently, the Delta experienced major levee failures with resulting flooding. Since 1950, Webb Tract and Quimby Island have flooded; Webb Tract and Quimby Island have since been reclaimed. Based on past flooding experience and the vulnerability of the levees to ground- shaking effects of major earthquakes, the Delta islands and other low-lying lands are considered to be subject to flooding. U.S. Geological Survey Maps, 1973, indicate that the area below the 10-foot contour is flood prone (i.e.; may be inundated by a 100 year flood). This includes the Delta islands and lowland areas north and northwest of Knightsen. Special consideration must be given this factor in the design and approval of development in these areas. VEGETATION The dominant species are the introduced annual grasses and flowering plants which have their maximum growth during the winter rainy season. Open woodland-grass combinations are found along the north and northwest-facing slopes with blue oak, interior live oak, and California buckeye the principal tree cover. In more sheltered areas such as canyons where more moisture is available, and in _areas of greater rainfall, the woodland growth is more dense. The foothills and steep uplands constitute some of the best coastal grazing land in the State. Grass hay is cut near the Alameda County border. In the Planning Area, marshland is confined to the small "channel islands" scattered along the sloughs and Old River. Because of silting, portions of Big Break are returning to their original marshy condition. Vegetation here consists principally of sedges, common tule, bull tule, willow, cottonwood, and many flowering plants. Streamside plant associations are located in stream channels, canyon bottoms, and along many levees. They include the some species as the hillside woodlands plus willow, alders, cottonwood, and.other trees and shrubs requiring an abundance of water. The riparian vegetation helps to reduce bank and levee erosion, maintains wildlife populations, and contributes to scenic and recreation values. I 000040 5 °' LOCATION MAP Solano County cArrwrtA rr,R•rrr start rrr / �y� �t G i M SSAO Il YAM IABP r R•A•• ® ArR rAr T So 1 "LRLUUriv rRRii"tS . / 'S —'+� ._-�•_� �� u R.►.r. ftd— 9 rnxLr °' "San Joaquin County t } " t PLANNING AREA n CLA I" CL Ux"To `l V W n[TU i l t SAM SAAMLrsco Y�• rAr - r Contra Costa County t or.tY`• Alameda County S.ft— one inch equals 28,000 feet ti "� GOALS AND POLICIES The Area General Plan is intended to meet the planning goals outlined below. The goals describe the kind of environment considered desirable. The policies enunciated are designed to provide means of achieving the goals. Goals and policies were formed for each of the following: Agriculture, planned communities, recreation community, recreation, industry, circulation and com- munity facilities. AGRICULTURE GOAL To encourage the preservation and enhancement of agriculture. POLICIES Preserve designated prime agricultural lands for agricultural use. Encourage and maintain the integrity of viable agricultural lands. Provide for the subdivision of agricultural land to an extent compatible with surrounding agricultural uses and zoning. Make agricultural zoning reflective of agricultural use. Provide a circulation system appropriate to rural development to support land uses and economic activity. Encourage water reclamation and other physical development projects which would increase, enhance, and protect agricultural land and its production capabilities. Encourage research into means of maintaining and improving the economic viability of agriculture in East County. Real estate taxes levied on agricultural lands should be assessed on the basis of agricultural use, not potential urban development values. PLANNED COMMUNITIES GOAL To develop a "sense" of community through the development of safe, healthful and attractive living environments and a range of housing styles, types, and cost ranges to suit varying needs and desires; to ensure that land uses are mutually/compctible, functional, and aesthetically pleasing; and to provide balanced levels of commercial and office development, community 7 000040 facilities and coordinated circulation, which will maintain and complement the rural nature of the area. POLICIES Give highest priority to the preservation of prime agricultural soils; urban development should be directed to areas of non-prime soils. Encourage contiguous growth in an orderly and efficient manner. Require existing and future urban development to be serviced by urban utilities and facilities, such as sewer and water services, when available. Develop balanced communities through the integration of all urban uses with equitable land use allocations and the provision for appropriate community facilities. Develop land use and circulation plans appropriate to each community, with higher residential densities permitted in Oakley, Byron and Knightsen townsites when water and sewer services are developed. Create an East County project review committee (advisory) with the capacity to review and advise concerning proposed projects. RECREATION COMMUNITY GOAL To provide and maintain a water-oriented recreation community supported by necessary residential and commercial development. POLICIES Define land use allocations appropriate to water-related recreation, to ensure balanced and contiguous growth compatible with the Delta's unique ecology. Require existing and future urban development to connect to service facilities (water and sewer) when available. RECREATION GOAL To allow recreational development only in a manner which complements the natural features of the area, including the topography, waterways, vegeta- tion and soil characteristics; to protect and enhance attributes of the Delta; and to preserve and maintain historic sites. 8 POLICIES Distribute and manage recreation activity according to the area's carrying capacity with special emphasis on controlling adverse environmental impact, conflict between uses, and trespass. At the some time recognize the regional importance of the area's recreation resources. Promote levee improvement programs. Obtain a well balanced distribution of local parks, related to the character and intensity of present and planned residential development. INDUSTRY GOAL To provide and maintain employment centers appropriate to the rural nature of the area and to aid in developing the economic base of the Planning Area through new employment opportunities. POLICIES Concentrate industrial development in areas immediately adjacent to major transportation corridors. Encourage the development of agriculturally related industry which will enhance the continued productivity of agriculture. Encourage industries which have the capability of employing East County residents. Define auto dismantling activity as an industrial use and confine its future development to designated industrial areas. CIRCULATION GOAL To achieve a safe, efficient, and coordinated transportation system capable of serving and supporting the citizens and the economic base of the area, and to minimize conflict between agricultural and urban land uses. POLICIES Provide a circulation system appropriate to rural development to support various land uses and economic activity. Provide for controlled access onto Highway 4 within areas designated for residential development growth in the Planned Communities. g 0000/i0 Encourage the use of buffer zones between residential areas and major transportation corridors and industrial facilities. Route new arterials around rather than through residential areas. Plan a system of bicycle paths and hiking trails to connect community facilities, residential areas, and the business district, as well as points of interest outside the community ufilizing existing public and semi-public right-of-way. Reduce the dependence on the automobile by encouraging the patronage of public transportation. Maintain the present road system in designated agricultural regions, with improvements confined to upgrading of structural deficiencies such as road widths, alignment, and drainage. Develop roads in hill areas to conform with topography in order to minimize disturbance of slope and natural features of the land. COMMUNITY FACILITIES GOAL To obtain maximum benefit from existing public structures; to provide adequate public services, cultural and recreational facilities for residents of all ages. POLICIES Provide civic, cultural and recreational facilities adequate to handle present and future demand. Maintain and upgrade existing public utility, fire, police and all other public services as needed to adequately protect and serve existing and new development. Utilize existing and future public facilities, such as schools, libraries and communities halls, as neighborhood activity centers. Preserve and restore wherever possible, areas and structures of historic significance. 10 THE GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS State law requires local government to prepare and adopt a General Plan, including as a minimum elements of land use, housing, circulation, scenic routes, open space, conservation, safety, seismic safety and noise. This Area General Plan includes the required elements of land use, circulation and open space as well as the optional elements of recreation, trails and community facilities. Housing, conservation, safety, seismic safety, scenic routes and noise are addressed in Countywide elements and are referenced to the Countywide Elements. This Area General Plan is designed to detail the General Plan elements named above, as they relate to the East County Planning Area. Elements which are not amended by this Area Plan continue to be in effect as the governing county policy throughout the county, including the East County area. The Area General Plan consists of both maps and text. The text outlines the plan policies, and the Plan maps delineate the distribution and location of land uses, roads, facilities and other features. ` The Area General Plan elements provide for the continuance and enhancement of agricultural activities, orderly growth of communities, the future growth of industry, all served by appropriately located roads and community facilities. Provision of future road improvements, flood control works and other major public projects should be coordinated with and partly paid by private develop- ment, so that the required public capital expenditures will not cause major increases in property taxes. The Plan designates large acreages of land for continued agricultural and rural activity in the Planning Area. In addition, it provides for a substantial area designated for suburban development. The developable area is substantially larger than that required for a potential population of 25,000. It is expected that the provision of an excess area for development will have two positive results: (1) pressures to develop lands designated for agriculture will be reduced, and (2) the development area is sufficiently large to allow for alternative locational choices. The Plan provides for balanced growth through designation of appropriate areas for a variety of uses, including land for residential, commercial and industrial uses. The development of the commercial and industrial areas will strengthen the Planning Area economy and provide for further employment opportunities for residents of the Planning Area. 11 000040 LAND USE ELEMENT The Land Use Element of the Area General Plan uses the following land use categories, discussed in greater detail below, and describes their disposition: Agriculture Agricultural Core Agriculture-Recreation Agriculture-Residential Planned Community and Recreation Community Residential Single Family (Low, Medium and High Density) Multiple Family (Low and Medium Density) Urban Density Rural Density Commercial Office Light Industry Commercial Recreation Public/Semi-Public Recreation Major Parks/Recreation Areas Local Parks Historic Sites Trails Industry The location of land uses is shown on an overall map of the Planning Area, and the individual uses within the "Planned Community and Recreation Community" category are shown on larger scale maps which specify the land uses within the "Planned Communities" of Oakley-Brentwood, Byron, Knightsen, and Discovery Bay, and the "Recreation Community" of Bethel Island/Sand Mound Slough. AGRICULTURE The economy of eastern Contra Costa is based primarily on agriculture and related industries. The Planning Area contains approximately 40 percent of the County's agricultural land and it produced an average income of more than $27,000,000 from 1970 to 1974, an average of 72.8 percent of the County's agricultural total for the same period. Acreage in agriculture in Contra Costa County diminished from 299,954 in 1960 to 244,705 in 1970, a decrease of 18 percent. The reasons for this reduction include among others urbanization, land permanently taken out of agriculture production, and land converted to recreational use. The primary objective of this Area General Plan is the preservation of productive agricultural lands in the Planning Area on prime soils, so that viable 12 agricultural activity may continue. In order to achieve this goal, a number of I Contra Costa County Agriculture Department. land use policies must be adopted, existing zoning and other ordinances refined, and new and effective programs developed and implemented. A number of factors inhibit the future viability of agricultural operations in eastern Contra Costa County. A major problem pertains to small parcel size. Where parcels are small it is more expensive to farm the land because of costs involved in moving equipment from parcel to parcel and the limitations on the manner in which insecticides and fertilizers may be applied. Land suitable for agriculture may also be suited for urban development, primarily because it is flat and easy to build upon. Through the minor subdivision process, large acreages can ultimately be divided into five acres lots with exceptions granted from development plans and improvements normally required for major subdivisions. This process fragments existing agricultural land and places an additional burden on the farmers in the area who wish to continue farming. Division into smaller parcels often also results in higher assessments and higher real estate taxes, and may render agricultural operations econom- ically infeasible. Market valuation-of farm land and the resultant tax burden levied on them is another impact on agricultural viability. A problem arises when viable farm land is assessed at -a speculative value for urban use rather than one reflective of farm values. When agricultural and residential uses adjoin, a number of directly associated problems often develop. In general, residential areas hamper the farmer trying to operate his farm in an efficient manner, and the farm use may annoy nearby residents. Very low residential densities would minimize these conflicts. The policies of this Plan will exclude suburban development from agricultural areas, and will permit only basic agricultural and rural and recreation uses in these areas. Services and facilities, in turn, will be based upon rural and agricultural needs. On the other hand, the Plan acknowledges the existence of certain non-conforming prior parcels and ownerships in all land use areas. Agricultural Core Approximately 14,600 acres (12 percent of the Planning Area) are designated as the Agricultural Core. These are prime agricultural lands with soils rating as . Class 1 or Class 11 in the land use capability classification of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. Most lands shown in this category are now used for agricultural purposes and are expected to continue in this use. Agricultural pursuits in the Agricultural Core should be protected by requiring a 10 acre minimum parcel size to maintain economically feasible commercial- agricultural units. The creation of small uneconomical units will be discouraged by land use controls, so that it will be unnecessary for property owners to market the land in small parcels. 13 The Blue Goose Farm Labor Camp facility, located southerly of the City of Brentwood along Highway 4, provides much needed housing for farm workers and their families. Current efforts to upgrade and improve these facilities are deemed to be consistent with the provisions of this land use category. Agriculture-Recreation A 20 acre minimum parcel size is applied in this category. It encompasses the Delta islands and Delta lowlands which may be subject to occasional flooding. Both have potential recreational value, but will remain primarily in agricultural use during the plan period. However, if future economic conditions or urban pressures cause a change in the use of these lands, future recreational uses should not conflict with the predominant agricultural uses. Recreational development should be limited to areas where compatible with agricultural uses, and full protection from a 100-year flood and urban levels of services may not be provided in the foreseeable future in these areas. Approximately 32,111 acres (27 percent of the Planning Area) are designated for this use. Docks and marinas permitted by the implementing zoning district shall be considered for approval in certain areas based on the following criteria: Where projects can be clustered and located adjacent to similar uses. Along waterways having an adequate channel width as defined by the State Harbors and Navigation Code. In areas having adequate public vehicular access. Where offsite improvements, such as required access roads, can be assigned to development. Where adequate onsite sewage disposal can be provided. Where located in an area served by a public fire protection district. Agriculture-Residential Lands' designated Agriculture-Residential are located essentially west and north of the Agricultural Core, encompassing the steeper slopes and foothills of the Planning Area, totaling approximately 53,896 acres (45 percent of the Planning Area). This area, due to its lower agricultural value, may be allowed to develop at a very low density, permitting parcels as small as 5 acres subject to applicable health and safety standards. In certain areas designated Agriculture-Residential, a pattern of one acre parcels has already bden established. In these areas the Planning Commission may allow the division of land to the predominant parcel size under exceptional circumstances, subject to appropriate criteria to be adopted by the Planning Commision. Most of the Agriculture-Residential area should not be required for development 14 during the planning period; therefore, existing extensive agriculture should be encouraged to continue. `��` ♦ � ��\...-- \., �� /,moi `, � ��`� � ��.' -:� _.� ; �'+� „t`�� TL.��}'�, t "��1 ��'� � �� f-�"r"� to x`rr � ,�'�ii�, c t"'�`, pry � x. � z- .< � -E �w:� �', i � � �Ca� J .• 'r '' � l��f _ � �� Yah �" �"r �µ t� `.' .. rn J' �" � :�.�, i�j ��*� 'V r I� ♦ b ,ti fir �� ,•.: � . �`: __, 1 Sic l +`"' ��;y�.pti.Of;µl_. ,• i �� 0 a ✓ v 3 D D rQ p rY7 .., �4 �E U r m gAZ d•':;:::;; � yq •,,.'��rk�rC-;'�i`` 'n�--�•,� i "�•. �H4 i,+`t4r �t: �. '''' -•'• :•�t•.:=:�:�:� �. .•ii: • .� �r�".. •y,'�.�-�..•�s�� r �� a» rr+.i�i'Gi,Ra'.�ti:�s � ".♦"v«a��!''•�•♦•rte.`.-• r z�F T-'�}� •4 •j,+rz.:- ..'.j-• «•T_ •••��'z�'� �'yW�'?•',? i�+h�:: '. .. ''• ,} .- .......�; x: ;.�' .tet ,;.a} ••,,�S..yr•..�'`^• i•••�"'Z`•ri :�'�-. �li�1w•-.v+ Y� «.:v'+"�• '��:7'r.� ., -• J"-�r.'.''4",�s�..ir t+ •r ,•. ..��-,'t•�L;e -...?azww� � ,.,,�1��' � �v`�•-~-=:� .'•-.^a.': _d!-'!1• .LT•' -:tom y�•?�Yr, �� "` :'�1'�'i"L� ,�ti'�" �''�^•' +�. Oy:�S?�T��^;y�,. s" "'-`'i�r�.�r x�'�'+";p� � '` •,�,�r�'.'.•�"'•,,�,;4�,f.3� ... ..;+._ � '♦1'1 s• '? "♦^ �7" a%�{'�,'��'i'•�s.� 4;'�$•*f�s" •n,k'• wiCti.%.• .ay.�-�.'1 .Z..,� ;ti> "1.♦r._. •ti�� , •i r r�. ICJ.tK��.S'••H� .��,.•!«f�"`Jr , .�s.,�•� a. 1 •�y .t •♦. n^1 n,•'w!-*h t .l .-♦•s-•�.• .+1 7�' tial Jr'a.'„T.• �K � •:{'a1i �-" �.n •.. •�_t o-v.t:ti?1"F'a'y.i ^ ^. „t.t.'1t�1 e.to ' •• •�••."� "r•t - '`5.i -.Y 7 " •1 ^n>„� -�. ^~'a;�:V•` �' > -k lzi ?, ''C 4^'?Mtt'•s77�` ,,,"S,._^��,�t,S�t�,•r, ,r s", v p rs' 14:.,t ,♦"1;i•t.M •sx s �♦. "1 y a2';,ti•a'1" ',♦•t,�•• .s�r-� S f,'J•^ •d'a� ::✓�S✓i4'�"F � j�y v .j� ^•'a,"♦,:+'• +.,'•� " n'�+y�A •�e�"-�1y�f,�3�a 1"a '1' •'R=`''l ;, al'=`%:�.+.4�j,�:•ijF�'."• a C- •T�y�+`ty3�„^�,��L.'ja up'Kia ti. 1>��."+i3i eS• �.1`Q'> t= � s: f �a.•+e 'st _S"'^"yr•-a+,.j -�' rt ."'�'rw^{``' r `a•q•. •`f'!`f yl i. ,S^1•�y'.~a^ •♦�♦,+ -♦� jM:•Q• h.«1. 'X' �T ,�•y^r .: Y•�r.:SK yhf• a,`,•,. ,r'+ +'+'�a �' •s'u. ti,. 1,�.wr• ,.�+ Q .�•'.K "wy •._ �a:�-d,,t"S' '~...+. .ter_...•,.e.fi;•.�r.�r�'.s:,• .+� `� '��; w ' '♦»lam ..?r-t n� y� � .,!x ..,t. !.�, � � �, --a't•c, .-♦ ., ,a'1'.,.. ru�. :5.:' ,eat. '•.:4 � -u:'T'i�,.3''w... a'r�-:,�..:;F.t ,:4:-. � '? �" >�� _ 1+K•,♦ s'.h'1-ti, 4•� ?:: t s*'..r`:N`f�Y.Y�� M -�'=rc3yQ'�"'N �� laa,��i'�1fi�•'�-a.^ '�•�Fa�`;fig`.. ' ^'+•�.,,'s•,t� '�'^h? 'K�>•~ti''�.?s` ��,�..� �1�,;��. tL�r�iz.�"'?��;ar�'.�;. ,,.. }�,�:;�.a�•.?l..�s-�-•+t'"`.. .,.a. .:fi: +?,;� h �.w..a:♦,,.t^^ y�,�.,'� ?\'1'.i"'ss > . r:%-i••a K'� „'"G�rtr'=�'�.rltt"..••"':�:%, t'r;" e•.�L"`3�c= .�y,;ry"C» •� �:'��i��W �'3r•^t A^'•. ...-..��;y..s•,•...,,�. 3•r'�r,:»;....•.3, >:.G'fre�• .r .��y�.� �yy .rs .,tom '*'" ''- -a'h `,♦ a a �;i 1- .. ' �e 1�`�j��'g'.:5,�.<.�+ v' •r'•',.,�.�•t�rs�'.:.�.' `9�i��,•.'� r'?S".r,}! n�i;•1.� •:y>�a .♦ h- •t-�j'r+'•`-••K.:.� ,,:A••` •5w `TrF' •y'Y'�^,P�P.:s,,?.t'tt. M4} ¢"f .�i% �� . .j Vsf avf••'r .s 1` {. �1,' �'l. '?.!a'♦ A-!♦ i•`4•.rc a,. ice.♦-.• ..-k '•3 .- '.ti..� ^-'-'r .. +t+t.•' _' �{"mar t'w+ r ,r�,S t s -s� T •c. -7 +Cr^"+�-� ''c,{•,. ♦a ;� .�'* �.• :�• Yw a Sa"^% 3 •�S. .�,`r;�aa"'dy....y~-s+.T' '••^:.rte-,3•'nt„ .x+.,.,�� 4 > r' r' caa•. ;.^ r+{ .:..rr''. , .ri.h'ti..-`??. 1,•'!" ��:.+..��+�-a" .,.�t;?��i•_-S',.•i�-rte ::o„y)-�',�„r.rti..jlr..' •f♦�'�:,��f•x•v ,•�t•,S'.,� j7i'',�`♦S�Y'y �1iy�.z%a 't 1[ SR ♦ r�L � ri � �'�'� •a��• 'S"'!'_.. ;.* rr;i�f�„�+rz'- `-.••�•'t�`.,�••h^'' �3;��tt�'y�i� ^��SJ,,r� ♦ ,• ,♦ .a �?-♦h-`>>� '� � a.: Cr�i-:ems' 4'"a•+'%.-:�.�:�f�'-• ✓�" t��• 3• � � '< = . :-�=.-♦ %.a, �•:. ��.•♦" tsr, t.'..rti"+9- �•.p�✓�'•y:..•ti"j�•if�'��:�its'- '-t,.�:'• ,.+ •1 '..^>t� M>�' W 4. .'••�t±d�'s J.t�-��+LS'�S'T".�t'"i�4y�rY• ^* .•r��.�i:��+W f•t . �t'.,,� ;`�+.l~>ti Y-♦.''� -a.. ?'��"cr.'�.�', r !..�.,•"kh'4%�„,�,,�',`�y,�.�f��+:1M i{•Y'•v:x,�r+' .5a:s1'4� :k -. 7Yte• rr rE." ci,''•.GY, s � sr• t�n„ ,,'1ti"''�.. �r^a-.'-' U�sM n .d.q Y L r ",r�. t�•S�''l.. �•+i'�••• ��e4� L' •. t.p�19� '.•:. •'t'. J,aaA,� ,.-�le�`�1,�6,��,".,��G�{.s•�.,��;-„ L�,r`.. ,,.a �•,�'e"e�3.'�,.,�.*•��yc��'.�+t .�'♦ _ n':r.•� •♦•s --t •r iv '".:S.Sa,•g'i"$.'F=-t '1..5' i:,`'r^:"i'ya'r•'•'}f•'+.he'.�;-��`Ye n`n••�ti.�,♦ ..sem"♦ �,,y.♦w� r..Z.:r•^��7.'k;7Y� :j"r,::�7�,?{.. fir. ,s••ti".,y... '4.'HwC:��.. v....y .,�; .a�•!.i"`•* . ..� a'�� i^.r,•r•�'�%} •� - q., "} t, !n/t > � •l+.�r:•`S�1' . �'•:",� �yj1•o tel: r s '.aim ;. `-:•�-��,;f�X:.;, �, � ' PLANNED COMMUNITIES AND RECREATION COMMUNITY Achievement of the goal of preserving productive agricultural lands can only be realized if residential, commercial, and light industrial growth is directed into non-agricultural areas. Four existing communities in the Planning Area have been delineated as urban growth centers on the General Plan map, and identified as "Planned Communities". Criteria used for selection of Planned Communities are: lands now served by water and sewer facilities; lands to which such services can be logically and economically extended in the near future; and/or soils of non-prime classification. The community of Oakley and the City of Brentwood will form the nuclei for the largest Planned Community. The small communities of Knightsen in the north central portion of the Planning Area and Byron in the southern portion will form small nodes for urban-residential development. The fourth Planned Community is Discovery Bay in the eastern section of the Planning Area, near the San Joaquin County line. Bethel Island/Sand Mound Slough is shown as a Recreation Community denoting its appropriateness for water related recreation. The Planned Community/Recreation Community concept seeks to enhance the rural nature of the Planning Area and at the some time develop a "sense" of community and cohesion within each growth center. The Area General Plan will facilitate implementation of this concept: Each community will retain its downtown district as the business and commercial center, with efforts directed toward its rehabilitation and enhancement. Adequate areas will be reserved for commercial expansion as Iu the need arises. Future urban development within these urban growth areas will be required to connect to urban utilities and facilities such as sewer and water services. This action will promote the objective of efficient, orderly and coordinated growth as characterized by the Planned Community concept. The Area General Plan prescribes the locational pattern of each Planned ;r Community and establishes specific objectives concerning urban develop- ment. The Area General Plan provides for a development policy which ties urban growth to the availability of urban services. The Area General Plan acknowledges the General Plan of the City of Brentwood and the previously approved development pattern of Discovery Bay. Residential In East County, current residential land use accounts for 2,200 acres or 1.9 percent of the total 117,500 acres in the Planning Area. Much of this use is concentrated in Bethel Island (150 acres), Oakley (300 acres), Sand Hill (250 acres), Brentwood (150 acres), Byron (100 acres) and Discovery Bay (620 acres). 17 0000/0 The remaining acreage is dispersed throughout the remainder of the Planning Area. Single family residences constitute 89 percent (2,000 acres) of the total residential land use. The next most prevalent residential use is the mobile home park at 115 acres or about 5 percent of the total. Individual mobile homes occupy another 60 acres (about 3 percent), while multiple family dwellings and group quarters occupy 35 acres (2 percent) and 15 acres (less than I percent), respectively. The Plan utilizes five residential land use categories: three Single Family ; Residential and two Multiple Family Residential designations. Single Family Residential This land use provides for the expansion of single family homes in the Planning Area. The density and development of single family homes is related to service- availability criteria (water and sanitary sewer) as defined below: Service Availability Minimum Allowable Parcel Size No public water or water connection 5 acres available. One public service (sewer or water) I acre connection available. Both public water and sewer connections Minimum parcel size consistent available. with the densities specified below and drainage, health, and other applicable standards. A "public water" connection shall mean a connection to any one of the following: Oakley County Water District; City of Brentwood; Contra Costa County Water District, if in an improvement district; a county sanitation district which also provides community water, including County Districts 15 and 19; or any water or other district authorized to provide and providing such service. A public water connection shall not include mutual water companies, irrigation or reclamation districts. "Public sewer" connection shall mean a connection to a sewer in a sanitary or sanitation district authorized to provide and providing such including: City of Brentwood, Byron Sanitary District, Oakley Sanitary District and County Sanita- tion Districts 15 and 19, or other district created for that purpose. The community facilities availability criteria for parcel divisions shall apply to non-residential uses as well as residential uses. In the case of an existing lot of substandard size where both water and septic tank are required, at least one acre 18 of land shall be required. The application of these development criteria is directed at providing a contiguous growth pattern, allowing residential development to take place in an orderly manner. The criteria apply to all residential areas indicated on the Plan Map. Single Family Residential - Low Density (1-3 Units/Net Acre) This designation is for areas generally in outlying locations, on land inconveniently located with respect to transportation and other local and regional facilities. Large lot suburban density uses are appropriate here. Single Family Residential - Medium Density (3-5 Units/Net Acre) This designation is for areas which are located on the periphery of the downtown areas of the Knightsen and Byron communities. It allows for a transition between agricultural/residential use and high density single family uses. Single Family Residential - High Density (5-7 Units/Net Acre) High density areas are on easily developed land, convenient to transporta- tion and shopping facilities. Also included within this category are duplexes which would generate a maximum 8-9 Units/Net Acre. This designation reflects existing small lot neighborhoods in the Planned Communities and the perimeter of Bethel Island and Sand Mound Slough. Where service availability criteria and designated densities diverge, the more restrictive shall govern. On Bethel Island and Sand Mound Slough only, Single Family High Density use is construed to include boat harbors, launching facilities, and anci I lary uses, after granting of a Land Use Permit. Multiple Family Residential The Plan provides for areas of multiple family units in Oakley, Byron and Discovery Bay. Multiple family areas are located near shopping and major traffic routes and provide for a variety of housing types and residence choices. Additional areas are designated for this use in the Recreation Community of Bethel Island, including Sand Mound Slough. Multiple family housing density ranges are set forth below, and generally range from 7 to 21 units per net acre. In addition to providing for multiple family residential units, this land use category also includes mobile home parks. Multiple Family Residential - Low Density (7-12 Units/Net Acre) Low density multiple family areas are shown in Discovery Bay. The emphasis here is on convenient location, transition between residential and commer- cial uses, and a suburban atmosphere through landscaped areas. Duplexes and mobile home parks are included in this land use category. 19 000040 Multiple Family Residential - Medium Density (12-21 Units/Net Acre) This density provides for a wide range of housing types, from single story patio homes and two-story townhouses in the middle of the range, to two- story townhouse and apartment complexes at the higher end of the range. Areas in Byron and Oakley are shown for this use. Urban Density These areas are located within the City of Brentwood and reflect the designation of the existing City of Brentwood General Plan. As defined in the City's General Plan, "Urban Density Development - meaning some commercial and industrial development and residential development (including apartments) at a density of at least three dwelling units per acre (lot sizes smaller than 10-15,000 square feet)" Rural Density These areas are located within the City of Brentwood and reflect the designation of the existing City of Brentwood General Plan. As defined in the City's General Plan, "Rural Density Development - meaning residential uses developed in large lots (at least one-half to one acre in size) or clustered with most of the site left in open space preferably in agricultural use. Commercial Currently business activity in the Planning Area is generally concentrated in Oakley, Brentwood and the Highway 4 corridor between the two communities. The remainder of the business activity is located mostly in Bethel Island, Knightsen and Byron. The Plan provides for the expansion of business activity contiguous to present commercial development, and is intended to maintain the viability of the current "downtown" of each of the communities. Since each of the commercial areas is relatively small, commercial and office uses are not delineated separately except in Discovery Bay. The Plan recognizes the need for local convenience shopping centers within the Planning Area, and the need for a limited number of these activities in residential areas should be recognized. Office Office uses are delineated separately in the Discovery Bay Planned Community. Areas provide for professional, administrative and general business offices. Light Industry Light industrial uses provide for local employment opportunities and the expan- 20 sion of the economic base of the community. The Plan provides areas designated for light industry in the communities of Oakley, Knightsen and Byron. These areas are located to take advantage of railroad sidings and major transportation routes to facilitate shopping and receiving of goods. Initially, industries will be of a type which will enhance and support the agricultural community. Later expansion should include more broadly based light industrial complexes providing greater opportunity for a variety of jobs within the Planning Area. Commercial Recreation Commercial recreation uses are delineated in the Discovery Bay community. The area outlined denotes commercial uses oriented around the golf course and marina. These include a clubhouse, restaurant, harbormaster's office, launching ramps and driving range. Public/Semi-Public The Public/Semi-Public category reflects the major publicly and semi-publicly owned lands and facilities such as schools, County offices, utilities, etc. The Plan acknowledges the general compatibility of these uses with other land use categories. The projected need for these facilities is discussed in the Commu- nity Facilities Element of this Plan. THE PLANNED COMMUNITIES The brief description below summarizes the major land use proposals for each Planned Community. In general, the proposals reflect existing land use patterns, extended and based upon estimates of future population growth and potential demand and supply for public facilities. Oakley-Brentwood This Planned Community is the largest in the Planning Area and extends from the Neroly-Bridgehead Roads area southeasterly through the Oakley and Sand Hill areas to link with the Ciry of Brentwood. It is envisioned that most development in this area will fill-in vacant lands already served by roads and utilities, and will take place at development densities in keeping with the character of the area. In the Oakley area new development is encouraged to take place within the Oakley County Water District and Oakley Sanitary District boundaries, basically north of the Contra Costa Canal, as an infilling process and in a contiguous manner where water and sewer mains can be efficiently extended. The area designated for Single Family Residential - Low Density uses, south of Laurel Road, should be considered as interim agriculture since viable agricultural units exist here and the area is not needed to accommodate growth to 1990. This interim agriculture status should be reviewed periodically. This portion of the 21 0000,10 Planned Community should be considered for urban development (subdivision) only when all of the following criteria are met: The contiguous Planned Community area is largely developed; i.e., most of the area in Oakley north of Laurel Road is built out at the residential densities assigned by the General Plan. Adequate utility capacity is available and service lines or trunks are in proximity to area. Costs of providing the development with public services, including street improvements, are fully assumed by the developer. Commercial land use is indicated at Highway 4 and Empire Avenue; along Highway 4 through the present business district of Oakley; at the intersection of Highway 4 and Cypress Road; and along Highway 4, extending both north and south of Lone Tree Way. Multiple Family Residential uses are located west of Highway 4 north of Empire Avenue, along the south side of Highway 4 easterly from Empire Avenue, and between Old Highway 4 and its relocation in the Oakley area. The Light Industrial land use is shown along the ATSF Railroad tracks from just north of Main Street to the Contra Costa Canal, and south of Highway 4 between Neroly Road and across Live Oak Road, in Oakley. Public/Semi-Public land uses include the Oakley and Gehringer schools; the Oakley Sewage Treatment Plan; and the Brentwood city sewage treatment plant located along Marsh Creek Channel east of Highway 4. The remainder of the Planned Community is indicated for Single Family Residential use at high and low densities. The adopted General Plan of the City of Brentwood is shown for both the areas within the city limits and is reflected in the densities in the established Sphere of Influence of the city. The holding capacity of this Planned Community is estimated at approximately 30,000 persons, if appropriate public facilities can be provided, though the population is estimated at 14,600 in 1990. Lands adjoining the city limits of Brentwood, both inside and outside the Planned Community, are considered to be in a Holding Area -- the County General Plan designation within this Holding Area is subject to review in the event of annexation to the city. Knightsen The community of Knightsen is generally located at the intersection of Knightsen Avenue and Delta Road, northeasterly of the City of Brentwood. The land use element of the Plan generally reflects existing development in the community. The westerly portion of the community is designated for Single Family Residential (high and medium density) land use and provides substantial areas where new residential development could occur. Existing residential development east of the Knightsen Elementary School is also shown. The commercial land uses are concentrated on the southerly side of Knightsen Avenue, between First Street and Delta Road, sufficient in size to serve not only Knightsen but the surrounding agricultural area. Light Industry is outlined for 22 the area fronting on the northerly side of Knightsen Avenue along the ATSF Railroad tracks. The Knightsen Elementary School, located in the easterly portion of the community, comprises the Public/Semi-Public land use category. Holding capacity is estimated at 250, and the 1990 population at approximately 160. Byron Byron is centered along the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way in the southerly portion of the Planning Area. Multiple Family Residential, Commer- cial and Light Industry uses are clustered in the central part of the community, and also extend northerly along the Byron Highway. The Single Family Residential uses, both high and medium density, are designated around the more intensive land uses discussed above. The Byron Elementary School and the Byron Fire Station, located in the north and south parts of the community, respec- tively, comprise the Public/Semi-Public land use category. The land use proposals in the Byron area provide for a holding capacity of up to 1,500 persons with a 1990 population of approximately 600 persons. Discovery Bay Discovery Bay is a water oriented residential community located in the easterly portion of the Planning Area near the San Joaquin County line. At full development, Discovery Bay could grow from its present population of 90 to approximately 12,000 persons. Development will be comprised primarily of single family homes, with some multiple family residential and commercial- recreation development around man-made lagoons and water channels. The community will also contain limited commercial development in its center and commercial and office development at its southerly edge along Highway 4. Recreational facilities will include a golf course, neighborhood parks and commercial marina. RECREATION COMMUNITY The area indicated as Recreation Community is planned to accommodate uses which are primarily oriented to a recreational opportunity, including certain related residential and commercial uses. The Area General Plan designates the community of Bethel Island and an area along Sand Mound and Dutch Sloughs for this type of recreation oriented use. Bethel Island/Sand Mound Slough Five land use designations are applied in the Bethel Island Area. The existing commercial uses and an expansion area located along Bethel Island Road at the entrance to the island are designated in the commercial land use category, as are the major marina and boat harbor complexes. The perimeter and a large portion of the south and southeasterly part of the island, as well as lands along the southerly bank of Dutch Slough and along Sand Mound Boulevard are shown as Single Family Residential - High Density uses, and also include small existing boating facilities. The condominium complex on Sand Mound Slough and an area at the eastern end of Gateway Boulevard are designated for Multiple Family - 23 0000t'0 OAKLEY COMMUNITY PLAN { A Portion of the Oakley- Brentwood Community Plan j STATE HWY.4 •ilf rf iiiir•i fiif. ♦11• fifi••illf!•+• ,ffrf ir• .fl ? !1!! /►. f••fiii!••i•tlrif er1•liiri. ! 9 i•i!i !f•ilrf•i1lrili!!ri•ri1ti111• ♦ti rf ii•irii•. 'X S if iii fi•i!r!••i1••+flr••f1!•••i• Il/raiaJ riiwiii. ••ir• iiulrflarrrrff•rffi•ilfw- r+rri!•rfi•ifalf• '�l�jh, N•t• r+lrf•1!•!r i•tii«#tff!!t r!!•+i!•!!t••t•wii• ••!!r !!!••fff!«f+ffiwrlilllr riaif!•!ii••!•if•+f :� !+•! •lfrii•••rfi•fffilfilii tf#+••rr•i•t!!f!•!• --- iif tl+1f••i!«tf•t•ltti•i1! !i•tiirwf i•f•f•irf •f •Ir•It•llrilrlllff•rtlr f••Iirwi•;•!«•1!1• ,.... •Ir•!••/lrit•f Iris•f1•• .......................... rtlrltr!•f!• r • frt#fflr. , ff•ifl;ii!lf rf•ri� 1st#-00000000. 00!00•.'. .. .. ... .. .,.. m wt!•rgralsia•!!•l ufr+t \�♦�a ti rrl� ....:� .. .. ............: � lrJiwfiiflfi•r!•w!•Itlr • ff. 'II 1•i#••i•t Nfllii•!•f Nif•N• sift .. ..........::............. - ir!•Ifalffriirrwrfit!•w•i!t• ••/r . .................. . rn !r!rli;ritwi!!00.0r+•fiw0flr •+!•!•!•!•• .;:::::;::::::: CYPRESS RD. !11••i1lif•lirii#i•1#iiifl►i !00!!00•if .............. ..w. > tfflrf irfi•f/•1•i•!i«ifrif rf rfalrf i•a ................... . .... .. rtlif!!ill;alil•f•aiiffiilli trlf 0!!1.<. _ .. .. ... wrf ifaili•+!!«iiill+ti shirt /rlr tir "�• ' ..................:.. m •ii 1••fr••if!!11•f•«•ialirl! ••••+ .....,................. .. • iff•r!r!!!if• .< ................::.. •f sisf 000.0♦ . Conti. ..C85td: Canat ... ............. if••110•♦ -.... -..-... ..."..................... .... .... 0000••1. ::: .............. ..., .. •.... ::::':.:LAUREL RD,:::::. 7 0010 .. .. DELTA RD. .. SUNSET RD. in�0 See Brentwood Community Plan LEGEND Single Family Residential- Low Density Single Family Residential- High Density 24 Multiple Family Residential-Medium Density Commercial Light Industry p5111 Public&Semi-Public PHASING OF GROWTH,OAKLEY •f/ ///f//iii�7s�.• STATE HWY.4 ///// •t;i •/t/ /!t//////ft//////// /!/////// JA •// r//////r/t///r//II/ lull////I/r/ )9.1�: •'//X !11/J///.11x1!/////t III!/////I//ll//// 0000 •it1 .1.100 •r//J //t////////1/!/!f// "444/147/47/47/74/47/744: .144//////// 414// // 0 ////////// 4444 . .. . . // !4 //i• ./// a ///////4/. PRIMARY GROWTH AREA •/// W .rrtl z //111//!f//!/i!/1/r /!///////r////!/// 1/r.1.1.1.1!/ ,•• Uj •�/1/ //r//////r.14.14///j ///44J/r/r/t/r////d r/!////// / •. CYPRESS RD. • /.1040//rr//r////� J///1///r/////////. ////// !/r///////// /� Contra a Costa Canal /rrr/rr/r4r// rl///r/ • ✓/r114//!r// ////// • • • • LAUREL RD. • • • • • s • • i SECONDARY GROWTH AREA v • sA •• ( Interim Agriculture ) • •• 1- • } • Q • • • 93 • • i DELTA RD. • s i • • • • • i • •• 0000 •. LONE TREE WAY •• • •••••••••••i••••. • •• • • • • • • • • • • ; SUNSET RD. AV- 25 0 scale in feet 3,000 BRENTWOOD COMMUNITY PLAN A portion of the Oakley - Brentwood Planned Community ) See Oakley Community Plan SUNSET RD. 0066••• • 6666••• 6666• ••••••••••••• 6666•• •••••••••.••• 0666•.• •.••••••••• 0666••• Q•••••■••••• 0666••• ••••■•••••• 6666•• }••••••••••• 6666•• �•••••••■■•• 6666■• •••••■•■••• 6666•• 2••••••••••• .66.•••••••9••9.9.69. uj 4P • •i i i W •••••••••••••••••••••. •:•i•• :■i •••••9•••••••6666••9••1 •••■'..mm•as > Q •••••••■••••••••••••••. .■.. .■. '9 ..••••••••.•••.•..•....� ...■■... .......•.•.•• ..... :::::::•: 3 ....•...••.• :0000.. ......... to .• .......•.. 0000 ...0. ..... w �•• •..•.■..• wages 0000 • .■.■... Z ••• •� ■ ■ •ii•::•. .i ..• 0006 _Z 6666• •� • • passage • 09•iiii•66. Q 6666• •••••• ■ •....•••••. LL 0666.• ■ ■.::.i : : ....••..... 6660••• ■ ••■•■•• •• ••.6900••. •66••9••9•• • �.■••••• ■■•i..66..91 •99•••••999• • magnums■ ■ :. :::i. .. •9.90.90••.9•• •••••••■■ •••••.•■■ ... ■ ••••••••99.6.• •••.••• ■••...•.• ............................... •.................•. ■ ■ ■ ■ •• .••99.999..• • •.. use •names ■•.••■■■� ................................ ............•0 0 0 0... ■ ■ • • a-_9000.•.••i i• •am 06%noun •■ :• ::. .................................. ...•................ ■ ■ ■ .mm..• 6666 •. ■.•■ ■•••■ ••■••••• ................................ ....... '.•i*image ::•i a• ••a 0 a•. •.•................. -• 9900 • • age ................................ •.................•. ■ ..•..••■■ ■... ■■6.6.66 666..6•• 6666•■ ............................... 0660■ .■■■■••.••■•••••9■• 6666••■ 0.6 6606■ ..............................: ...0000............ ••.. .■■.■■••.■■■•••••••• •a.-.-••• •••••• .............................. ... 000_0. ............................. .. .......■■••.■••■•••••■■•••• •.• ••• • • 6600 DAINTY AVE. ,,,,,,, :::.i• :::•i•::•i•.•• •: •.•i• :::•i••0••' :. -00............00.. ......... ....■•.•...■66.06•• • •• ■......••. ................ ........ :•• ::. :::' 0 0■ :. • :...... 066. ..... . . .••. ■ •.■•.•• 0660 .......... 0000.••0000..•..•... • • •••■.• • ••••a.•6a•0ss.ag• o .......................... ............ .. . • • .••..• • •••••••• ••..•• . • ••■■•••• McCLARREN RD. •::::. . •:. •. ••.•.•:.:•s 0000... .. . 0600.• 0 0 0 0.................. .. . .. ................... 0 ..•..■..•. 0000 . 0aa 000 ....................... 0000... . • 6666. 0000... 0000.. . see BALFOUR RD. •■• Jj �i- .Q O sal•in feet 2.ODO LEGEND 26 Single Family Residential- Low Density Single Family Residential-Medium Density ��6• Single Family Residential-High Density s". Urban Density-Commercial, Industrial,& Residential • • Rural Density- Large Lot Residential KNIGHTSEN COMMUNITY PLAN x z 0 x —1 y M z D m .. . ......... DELTA RD. \::•••.-• cF p scale in feet gpp LEGEND Single Family Residential - Medium Density Single Family Residential - High Density Commercial ® Light Industry ® Public& Semi—Public 27 W001 U BYRON COMMUNITY PLAN BYER RD. •fiitililtlaf, . safsfiftritfu _ .. {iailliii!lf of t!litiiiif/ia 'llaf#tf if••• +i iaittfifir ,iairtif lit •4tltlftrtt•.._. t1f♦tffiit .................. if#i!!if! !•f tf•ait•lii tiff Off• Y4rif lf• !•f•ff 4fttt4ifriffrfff. ,fftilii H Nirl4•if iifltfrrrf 4f ••till• irtit••f!!•tflltlifli!!ii •lf irff 4f itffflr4f lff rfff rf!lri. all la• .tf tf i!•rif tlfl4f ffiililrt 'A tiles 'N lrifffHiaif•!N#!irla •.q •af t•!•t•aftst!!#ilfirliifa • ii ,itiiiitiiti#filffiifita ... , - t•if lt•f rffrtffrlltrila si tf lltf•!!l•aiftlili•t . .itiltriitt4i•1f tlfff it !ta••4rtlitfaftrif4t•4a a!1!!f ltflfrliirfftfila afffirtaff if aflrittaf ii .faiia4flffarialiattflr• ••ttlfflffffrraftffftr!! fti/itttti.ilili ltt4ilif rttllf4if lffri if tirftir{ flillitlf/liflitlffffffN /frlsililali!!iflrii!!!{ /iafitlfa!!ifltiiititlN •tt4att!ltlf itlt!liriiai! " �•tf litlfl4•tlfrif twirl •aitlili!lififalrffrfa iffiaftlf rfltitlra•t• ��,t•aralitflf•i!ililfff - .... � Aitf•till iatlfalallitf 1. L� 4lffra�lNfN4f1lf1Hf• ` •flif 4•f if it#fill atalf/. � l•,ittitiiiliiafflaiifltili♦ •f rtl4al4tt!laif rallltlaii• .� •liltalrfflaltrlirrf if•fit sitiiaif rl l4iilf iilrif ilii!• •««s•• •w..r••rr••r.r.r• +f ttlffaaiif ritrriaiirrilfii w.aw. :::��;:�:::::�:;:: ffflffrfaafftlrl!!!tl#ilail♦ '•••••••••«•• •ltfffiflfflrfsflf!!flaflaa .....'..'.......••'•`•• � it Nrt!!t!•f lf!liiiifrili/ • • «••w••«. � •f afl!!!ilaiailliiif i!#i!r `�........•••�•••••••••••• tr•iilif lfr#!flitlr•!a!r! � rrr•s••«••.••.•• � ,li tall tf afif#ilriirrili• r.•a.s•rs««s••«•s.s•.••. it•fflriffi!!ilrilritlii •.♦•«•:•....s rr«•« a!•afttri!!f!r!ilrt+' s«••••s...•.•....wss«..•ss•.•.a •i•iitf i!!a o •fiiiitialiiir!!itlr w••�• •«s•a••.••. • _.... �ttlla a•a•• •••,••r+• +_ -••• +ti.•..._ • .tiirfliliiril4. .•.w.•w.sw .••••••.._. aftirffai DIABLO iiiiliiifiil/iffffrrlfiliiw, ••• �••• fllttfrflliif CAMINO.::i••t.••••t!. �� flfri:!•iftlifftirlarffwtlaltlllf•rtl!!!!a!!ar!!!!. •••••• ••• tirlia•a!f•!tli•ltfiilsi•••l•if•i•#•s• +i!•li4!!itl!!liiilifiiififlilf tfrriirliriiili!• .sss••sr•rw #if iffi4ii4lf ilfiN Htil Hif•••i•H•• Nllltilif•i!ilii!!ilrr!!r!!ilir#iiriililiilf i ...�... ttiira NltffffitOafltl UfNilf{4Ntf t• •atf•!allrillfliffliflffiflfrlflrlrliiliii!!rt iEi••r«s se i.•.-------- +lifiltlttatitit•f•t•••i •!•!t•• ii#ill/tlrtiii#•i!i!liiftlifliiffliiafriiriilfa �ifait•{tfaitiii _-_ - `fat•i!!liriiirii!!!!ilri!!!lriiii!!!!iiliila �••«s•«.s � ♦lfiallfi!!!liif!!!rililf!!rrli!!i!i!!irlrla ••«••��•\ fi!!!!riliii#ilfflfiifii!!a!liiii!!ilifiiif 'itlrilr•tlrili!!i!iliiilii!!!!!iiliiri!lria •f!i!fliaifii!!iliilfifflfili!lfrri!!!!!!a ♦!llriiif!!!!!!i!lrifli!!i!liitiritilif!' titlriiri!!liirttlli!!ii !rlifi!!!ililif' i4lf!!ii#illi!!!•/ril�iflri•�-^`---- +a!!!i!!tlltilf!liffi!!i /��11�1�� •llrrfflrrrfl4rllffrr . trflf llil4i•/ifffir fil!!lrilitlllr!!! tliiriliriiiilri iii#iiiliililrr {!iNlN!ilii! y-�� l/aliiiirli#• •#!i!!i!i!!ft . iNlM i!!iN p scale in feet 600 .fflrir LEGEND Single Family Residential-Medium Density Single Family Residential-High Density 28 Multiple Family Residential-Medium Density ® Commercial Light Industry ® Public&Semi-Public DISCOVERY BAY COMMUNITY PLAN .............. .............. .............. ..... ............... .:::.................... .................... .......................... . .. ..................... .......................... .. . ...................... ......................... ... ....................... ........................ .... ....................... ••e•e•• e• ....... ........................ ..................p 600000•000 •ee•• ......... ......................... V •eee•••• .••• •• • eee•e••ee• e•••••eee•••e•••••e•ee•• •00••••00••. �•••nN• •.000•0••••0.0•• •.e•ee•e•e•••eee••.eee•• •••••••••••_ _•e•• ••0e•••••e•••• ••••••••••e••••c•••••••e •••••••••e.e••ee••e m •e•e•••••••e•• •ee•e•••••.e•.•••.e•eee• ,••••••••••••••••••• 0000••• 0000••00••• •••••••••••e•••••e•••••• •••••e•••••••••ee•e•� 00.0000••=0.00000.00. cee••ceeeee•eceee0c0eec• ••••.e••00e••00ee••••• •00••eeeee000•e000. 000eeeee•00e••••e•ee00••••• •e••••••e••••e••••••m •NeeNee•••ec• 00•••N••e••e••••e00••e••• •e••••e••eee•e••••••e 0••00000•.•000•-- so*e••o•e••••••••••••e•• •••ee•e••e•••e••••••e•< ••••cee0•e•• c•e••eee0••e••e•e•eee•.• .••••••e••e•e••••••••• •000000000•.0000••- •••••ce••••ee••e•••••••• .••••e•••••e•••ee••e••W •ee•cee00••cer•. ••eee••e•••••eee•e•0•••• •••••ee•ee•••e•ee••e••r •0•eN•0e00c• e00e•••ee•e•.•e•e0••••••• •••••e•••e•.••••e••ee. ee•ee•e••••••r •.•e•eee•••.•e•e•ee••e•• ,••••e•••••e•. ••e•••< •••••••000000000.0 eeeee•••••e•ee•eeee•e••• ••••••e••••e. 0000 O ••e•eNe00•e•• ••••e•ee••eeeeee0eece••• •••eee•e•••• .0000•• ee••••e•eeeee 0ee•00e•e•••••0••0•e••••• •e•e•••ee•••• 0000 ••••00••0000000•• ••00c•ee••ee0•ee000•••e•.• ,•e•eee•••••ee .••• •••••60000000.00 D ee6e0ee600e••ee•e•ee•••• .•••••••••••••6•. .e•• •ee•ee•N•0• 00e00e.•••0•e••e0»e••••6• _••eee•••••6•e•eee•..•••• •.0•e••6.ee00000c••m •00000e60ee•6.00.60.6••66• ••e•ee•6.e•••••••6•••••e• ••••6•e•ee••eee• •eeeee.6••.•e•••••e•••••. .:••••••e••••••••6•e••e••• •ee••••••60eee0••� eeee••0••••e•e0••c••c••e• .•••••••••••••••••000.6••••• •••••e•e•6•e•00•c•p •ee0e•6e•6••••ee•e••ee66• .e00006600••00••e00006.00006.006•e•e• •0000cee00000e600eeeeee. ee0.00e6e00••6••6.06•e••6•c •006600.6•••e0000•e0060000••••N••e• •w••00.6••N0.6.006• •ee•e6••00.0000•N••••6•-_•• .•00••e00000000•u••••00••0000u0000.0000• •00.0000••00••66••eee6• ••.---•0••00••6.0000.00•.= •••••6••6•••••••00•••••-.• •e•••••6•Ne•ee•.e •••6•c••6•••M .00006.00••00006ee•e0066•e••• ••000006.0ce0ce00•• •oose..ee•••0. 006e00•e••c00.600•••••6e• `= •••00ee00e•e•cc III�IIII�I�I�) Illi .•••00••00006e00000000.6.00••0000••0000••00•••6• ••0000000000• I - III .•ecce•eee6.00•e•6•e•••00e••••ee••e00• \ •••ece•0cee0ee• I{ .ecce6••e00e•••00.6•e•ee6•e•6e00006.006• e• i .•••0e••0eee6e••6•••0000••0000.0000••e•00. ce•••N . .•••e•••00••0000.00•••0000••00••00000000.00••• 0.000• . .e••e•6eee006e•6e000ee00•e•00••00••00••• 000000 • .••0000•••0e•ee•••.••••e•6.6.00••0000.6. •00900 0000• _e6:ftem n .••••e6•e••••••e6.6•e00.6e00e0000.000000•• •c ••••60.0•e•••e•. Z .••eee600•ee00.000000••••0000.000000••00••• • • •ceee06.000.000•• D .eee•060ee000c0e•0ee0eee•eee00•ee• •• cece•0066e0••0.c00ec._._. . .000ece6.6••00e•00e•ee00.06ee•••••� •••..__ 00c0e•e60ee6ee06•ee•06ee•.2. .•e•e•6•eee•e•00••00•••00.6.00006e00• •e•.•. •00•e•••00••.__.••ee • •00c•e•ee•e00.0.•e66e0.00.Z. .e••e•6.00••••e•••e00••••6••••••• •••••••••••6c••e6.0e0c0ec• ••c0•e00.0cee00.0ee•e.•0.m. ,e00e66••ee•e••••e•0•••0••e66e• •.e••e••ee••eeeee••e••••- •0•e•ece0000•.0e0000.0e. . .0000000•••00ee•eee0eeee6ee•e•••. ..•e•••••••••.••••e••e•.'P •00.00660e•0.0000e0e0c0.r. .•e0•e00eeee••••e•6••6.0••00••e600. 00•••600000.6e•••06e0ec•..�G •0•ce•e0••00•ee00e00.0. . .0000•e•••00e••0000ee•00e•e•0000••0000•ON 0._. -•�6.6.00••e••6.6cec0.• •.0e0•ee•0•e006c000c0.�. .•000.00•ee•e••66••••00•••00••0000••60000.00••• •00•eeee•ee•.00ee0.0.tt` ••ce60ec.ee00e0ce0.e0.p. • .••000000•••eee000ece0000e06•••e066ee•••• •ec0•c6••00e0ce00.e0.'P •00e00e•e0•cee000c0e.. • .•00000000000••00••0••e6•.06e0.6ee•600.6.00•• •••••e•eeee•6000ce0• •e•0.00000.006ee00e000• • .•00••••••••e•c••e00••e006.0000••00••e•••00.6•. ••••••e00••e00.00.0•••! e••••e00•e•••00••e60e• •• .••0000••00.6c00••0000••00.00.0000•e00•••600.0000••600e ••00•e6•ee•e•000.ce0.9 ••eee••006e.•00cee• •• .•e•ee•••00000000000.00•e66•ec••••6ee••0000.6000� .••6•e6•e0.00e00e0000'�' 0.0••0cee00c•00e• 0000 .ee•00000000000.00••6•e•.6.006eee0e•6e••6.66e. 00••e••••6.000e00••ee•tn •ee00.006e••••0•• ••e• .•••e•0000•e•e6.•e•e.••.••.•••..•e..••.6..e .•..6e.••e.••e.••ee•e. •e6••e66e•••e •e••• ..........•................................ .eeeee00e0e•ceecee0ee0.'9• ••.0000•.. ee0ec. ..•••000000•e•--••00eeeceee0ece0e•e••0•eeeee00••. 0000c00e00eee0ce000ce0.O• •00• •00000.•• .•eeee•0• �e•••6e•e••••6•••e•e•ee0060000•ee••• •e00•••00eee•ceecee0ee00e•600• •000•.600• .0000••• ``�.••••e6.6•••••000•••••6e6•e••6.6.00, •••6e•ec•0e00c00ce00060ee000.00• 0ce6ee0e•• .---••6•� e•••e0000••••ee6•••e•000••600eee66.6•• •00•e00000ceecee00ecee006c.00• •00ece•e0e• ,00. ��•.e00660eee0•ec6ee0.6.06e0e•0.ee• •c0ee0cee•e0cee000e0c0ce00.� 0000' •.••.e•••••••••600••••600.00•••600006••••00• •••e•e•e•eeee00•ee•000•e•••. •0 e, e.e••••••••••e•eeee••6••••••••e••ee•6, •0e•6e•00•ee0000.00e000e•• ••• e••e••e00e••06•e•e•e•66••••e6•ee•••e6•� •.0eecee0.00e•e.ee00e•0cee• ••• •e•••••6••6•ee•eee•••••e•••e••••••e0•• .•e••60.0.e0cee•eecee0••e•• ••• ••000060000•e000000••00••00•••0000••0000••0000.600e•••. ••6.0e0000eeceeeee00e0.• 000• �. •0000006•ecce•e•e••••••ec•••e•••••e•e••••. .60e••e•e•ee0e00•c0ee00• 00• .. •ee••••e•66e0••00.6e00••e00.6600e•00e••e•00• Soo 00096609060660 •••e••ee•e••e.••c00• 0000 .0000••e•0000.0000••e•••0000••0000u0000••00•••0000••• _•••• •• •0• .• v••00000000.00•••00••0000••600••0000••0000• - 00e••00ee.0• 60000000• 000 .• :::4 000000000000 •ee••. 00000000.••0 00.0000 •• .e. •0000.6.6• •00e00u00u• •00••60• •600.0 •. •' '0000 0000• CLIPPER DR.••• I•0.000• PRESTWICK DR.0ee.0• .•. •• \.0000 ••• •eee00e.00006000e0e6000000• .e• � ` •6ee6•••ee0ee•6••6• ecee0ec00ee•000c00•e0•••6• .•• _•6• •00••0000••••00000000••0000.1 •- ----•--------000066.00•• .0000. -.• •............ NONE STATE HIGHWAY 4 LEGEND OODU,,�o 00.00: Single Family Residential-High Density Multiple Family Residential- Low Density ® Commercial 29 ® Commercial Recreation ® Office ® Public&Semi-Public 0 scale in feet 1,800 BETHEL ISLAND --SAND MOUND SLOUGH COMMUNITY PLAN if •e4•aa ••,r. e,*ra•rr•••rlriii. ,,,lfs_ aflf!#f••rliirilat sills free♦ lr c lfIt 0 1 lose e. ,*#*r i fret i!a! ilwi•i,era• ;++° r:r!**•i.fa!* / lose Yaleralaf••i!liae!•�iaa#ia� ,j;t r t f lila••,' t� ..++r� ilif leer!+•- .a*eai*fri• Y�J•:1, j-1+•1 �!•f.-•f ��. ! � sill. •f. r ::: ••!. Y4i•a::f:e4:„�:�.e7�l'f+,�•1�J}f'`Vy`.{'r-r-C1.,f Fr'r�l•t:•f'�t•tfI`BJ1+J�.�.{ij+J>tti•ll1j ifr\t•:'ti��t11.;.t1E.�.y1�,r1tetift�ti�J♦1+t1�,�/Cfwt;'•I`r+✓ff-�YJ,n'rJ�.t/�J',�'�7~yi{sat:�1ri�a„f.+7��•e •[��!��11(l1',l+fJ�Jt.ijw•�`{f'`�i•J'„,t^w�3rC"Jt�� :seiir•t•:s•�f�•i•f�,l•oale• is::: " fas � •• lslei•e••*•4 * •*fle♦ a! clir•0, goes •:::: J ir��. 'j 1:rY,�``� J.r' C�ill ,�� f� 2 � iil,!*r.� / f t. 7 r{'r � ♦ ...: '�"*�.`.+ t� r,• Q w /J 1 }J '(}/` S-/ .�.�.. f*,r,•if.•Jjf �..�11�yy,aj/ J� Yt '( cess/0.-.. } 1,(_ l•}t'i { ] J' { 's'l .r ,�••,lr4lw .fV + '� { r �J` , x•11 r VJ f!r I +i1�+,I �oo*o4srf�,l jt rt. !'; rj.. Y t tr ` J �r,'L"}1 ; C,•�" t (,. }.: se. LU •orfs::::a+.•}+�.4'�It♦ rl r 1: •::i♦ ! 4"� It I`(/' (/w itr �.�r� J+'r.1! j_ .�. »e•!i :::::•� �i. r♦ J, YJ •�tt rJ I t`}' Cmt}tUM,Y,r"� .ly.,�y t Y,('�+/•rJ'•'v�f/j: `,�:::::t so UM, `rr�'`ri�' r`t �'J� fi�� f'rye ', � .... ...i:'.. wleli. c' ool W:• •lea+t' +*�.�` t + � t' �•: i a S r4ia tj>�,t�v/Jf�ff��''�!l`•.j+ ............... ' Fj ,lea •!e!liif. 9,y ,rlr,ioeo r :: GATEWAY RD.::::::: :.: .: ••. -„ i•. see' ••if,. •f*r' •„r• ••e+ i!!t ... ........ .... . .. ♦it .......... ........ . .., .:.• *soo_•lost` •••a` ... .. .ri•!lflf•i.`i•irfrf• ref#_ . i!•#frig” i,iirei.• .. ... . ♦ -rflifr•arla,•ifi•rif!lifra• !befell *•sees. ie•a!i•*a`` •*faafr• fa•r•!if!#ee!lfa,rli,#!era! *rfli••!•,.•,!e!!.w” "•f•f•l•ffar•*ielfr„sere*•,• 'ia*fefr,a•e!• • 4 t if Yf• t # ri !f. $so•e AW Na tf• a ! !foe cele if•! else �� sees wife YIe• Qtl!♦ scale in feet 3.{}0{) safe lass. •cost LEGEND asst •alas Single Family Residential- Low Density sees .ell. Single Family Residential- High Density N!f! Multiple Family Residential- Low Density ® Commercial craft 30 eifs•s telaft �} Agriculture- Residential •wae assesss !*cele •i,aa• aliei Low Density uses. The central portion of the island is designated for Agricul- ture-Residential. Holding capacity is estimated at 6,400, and 1990 population at 2,900. RECREATION A major objective of the Area General Plan is the preservation of natural recreational resources in the Planning Area. These resources are indicated on the Plan Map as recreational land, and once utilized for other uses can not be replaced. Most of this land has important environmental, ecological, historic, and other chacteristics from which it derives its recreational potential. It is the intent of this Plan that these recreational areas be utilized by public or private recreationally-oriented developments or be preserved for future recreational use. Major Parks/Recreation Areas State Facilities A variety of state agencies exert influence over the Delta area and, therefore also on a portion of the East County Planning Area. Those agencies primarily concerned with recreation are the Department of Fish and Game and the Department of Parks and Recreation. Frank's Tract State Park Recreation Area. This area is basically a 3,310 acre lake surroun ed by perimeter levee remnants, which form a long line of slender islands. The park is maintained primarily for water-oriented recreation activi- ties. Park-type accommodations and public boat launching facilities do not exist within the Recreation Area itself. Water access to the Tract is provided through private marinas and launching facilities on Bethel Island and on adjacent sloughs. The nearest public boat launching ramp is located in Antioch. The Plan reflects a state program of park land development in the Frank's Tract Recreation Area. The state has assigned high priority to the acquisition and development of an intensive park facility which would include camping, pic- nicking, and boat-launching areas to relieve demands on Brannan Island State Park and to satisfy current demands at Frank's Tract. A site on the north shore of Bethel Island is deemed most appropriate for such a facility, since highway access is available and Bethel Island is already partly developed for recreation uses. Clifton Court Forebay. The Forebay, a water supply reservoir for the State Water Project elD tamping Plant, consists of 2,200 acres of water surface and eight miles of shoreline. The Forebay is now used for bank fishing and waterfowl hunting, and present recreation facilities include auto parking, a boat launching ramp and portable sanitation facilites. The Plan supports further development of a wider variety of recreation facili- ties, including approximately 100 acres of state lands available for onshore facilities for beaches, camp sites, picnic areas, concession areas and permanent 31 sanitation facilities. 0000110 Wildlife and Scenic Areas. The State's Delta Master Recreation Plan identifies areas of scenic beauty and unique wildlife resource which should be preserved and managed in the public interest. Two areas in the Planning Area are the Old River Islands between Rock Slough and Quimby Island and Big Break. The East Bay Regional Park District in cooperation with the U.S. Corps of Engineers is considering the possibility of developing the Big Break area as a regional park. Big Break has been identified as suitable for development as a "Wildlife Management Area". Local Parks The Area General Plan recommends that local neighborhood and community parks within the Planned and Recreation communities be provided as they develop. The County Park and Recreation Element of the General Plan provides a standard of four acres per 1,000 population. Wherever possible, school sites should be used to augment the park and recreation needs of the community. Existing local park lands in the Planning Area include the Brentwood Park (4 acres) and a tot lot facility (7,000 square feet), in the City of Brentwood; and a 3 acre park located on part of the Oakley School grounds in Oakley. An analysis of existing park facilities, applying County acreage standards, indicates a deficiency of 93 acres in the Planning Area based on a projected 1990 population of 25,000 persons. A formai mechanism to provide local park facilities to communities on an area wide basis does not now exist, since no County parks and recreation departments exist and the Planning Area does not lie within the East Bay Regional Park District. Portions of the Planning Area are serviced by other means: The Brentwood Parks and Recreation District provides local park facilities and services in the Brentwood area. County Service Area LIB-11, originally established to provide library ser- vices, will maintain the joint school-park facility at the Oakley School in conjunction with the Oakley Elementary School District. The Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District, originally established to provide levee maintenance and drainage facilities, may assume park and recreation service responsibilities. Major Parks The Area General Plan designates the John Marsh Home, the surrounding area and Marsh Creek Reservoir, as public and semi-public use. This facility is also a potential park facility. The County presently owns the home site which covers over 7 acres. The historic home and reservoir could provide a setting for a subregional park facility, serving not only people from the Planning Area, but also from the Central County. 32 The Plan recognizes the potential for private recreational development at Byron Hot Springs and designates this area for recreational use. Historic Sites In addition to the John Marsh Home, other sites in East County are also worthy of consideration for preservation. If and when funds become available, these sites should be considered for protection and restoration. Babbe's Landing, Sellers Road Preston House, near Byron Geddes House, near Brentwood Iron House School, Cypress Avenue and Sellers Road McCabe House, Brentwood Road Byron Hot Springs Hotel, near Byron Vasco Caves, near Byron Byers House, Byron Murphy and Wallace Homes, Brentwood Darby House Site, near Brentwood Hoffman House, Byron Coats Hall, Brentwood Parrish House of Methodist Church, Byron Point of Timber Landing, Indian Slough Point of Timber Trading Center, Point of Timber Road and Highway 4 Byron Grange Hall, Byron Byron 1OOF Hall, Byron Liberty Grammar School, near Brentwood Riding and Hiking Trails and Bicycle Paths Currently no trails or paths exist in the Planning Area. Future trails and paths should be integrated with the Countywide Recreation Element to provide for a system of recreation trails and paths within the County. Trail routes are shown in the County Interim Hiking and Riding Trail and Bicycle Path plans, except that in essentially level East County Areas hiking trails and riding trails should be located jointly. Trails. will generally connect Oakley with Bethel Island, Brentwood, and the Marsh Creek Reservoir. Highway 4 will serve as a connection to San Joaquin County. INDUSTRY Land currently in industrial use is limited to less than 600 acres, approximately 0.5 percent of the total land area in East County. "Heavy" Industry (104 acres) includes a wide range of industrial and manufacturing uses, some of which could provide substantial amounts of traffic, noise and fumes. The only existing use of this type is the E. I. DuPont plant near Bridgehead Road; the majority of the existing industry in the Planning Area is of the "light" industry type. "Light" industry (137 acres) is characterized by high performance characteristics, including low levels of noise and fumes, low land coverage and moderate traffic generation. Uses include manufacturing, wholesaling and storage among others. 33 An additional 350 acres are devoted to mineral extraction on agricultural lands. 0000,10 The Plan provides approximately 550 acres of land for heavy industry in the northwest corner of the Planning Area. This area reflects the existing DuPont plant, provides for expansion of the industrial community, and is a logical extension of the Antioch-Pittsburg industrial complex to the west of the Planning Area. Light industrial areas are designated in the Planned Communities (approximately 125 acres) to provide local employment opportunities and promote the expansion of the economic base of the community. Existing light industry outside the designated areas will be retained but may not be expanded. PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC Public and Semi-public uses include major publicly owned lands and facilities, and those owned by semi-public agencies. Public/Semi-Public areas outside the Planned Communities include: Deer Creek and Dry Creek water retention basins, Marsh Creek Reservoir and John Marsh Home, Byron Boys Ranch and the Byron Sewage Treatment facility. HOUSING ELEMENT In 1970, the Planning Area population of 13,900 was housed in 4,900 dwelling units with an average size of 2.9 persons per household. Of the total housing units, approximately 80 percent were single family dwelling units, 9.5 percent multiple family units, and the remaining 10.5 percent mobile homes. In 1975 the Planning Area population of 15,200 was housed in 5,900 dwelling units with an average household size of 2.57 persons. Approximately 76 percent of the total housing units were single family dwelling units, 10.8 percent multiple family units, and the remaining 13.3 percent mobile homes and group quarters. Approximately 65 percent of the dwelling units are owner-occupied. The 35 percent in renter occupied units are mostly in single family residences and mobile homes. The data indicate a slight shift in the housing mix from single family homes to multiple family units and mobile homes, a shift which most likely is related to housing costs and the limited incomes of the increasingly aging population of the Planning Area. It is expected that housing needs of East County residents will be met partially through programs developed for all of the County pursuant to the Housing Element of the General Plan, though additional programs applicable mainly to rural areas (such as mortgage assistance of the Farmer's Home Administration) will also be utilized. CIRCULATION ELEMENT The Circulation Element of the Area General Plan designates a transportation 34 system to provide for the efficient movement of people and goods throughout the Planning Area and provide East County with links to the surrounding region. l ROAD SYSTEM The existing road system in East County consists primarily of County roads laid out in a typical grid system oriented north-south and east-west along section lines. The basic road pattern was established in the early 1930's to serve the agricultural needs of the area and has changed little since then. The Area General Plan calls for few major additions to the roadway system. The majority of new roads and road improvements will be provided through the development process by frontage and off-site improvement requirements. Freeways Freeways are high-speed limited access traffic arterials designed to facilitate the movement of large traffic volumes (40,000 and more trips per day), between regions and to provide connections for major development centers to a regional circulation facility. Consideration was given to the establishment of a Freeway alignment to connect San Joaquin County with existing Freeway Route 4 near the Antioch Bridge. However, state highway financing policies indicate that funds for such a facility will not be available for a time period exceeding the Planning Period, and the retention of a large-parcel development pattern in all but a few areas of East County renders it unnecessary to protect any alternative route alignments. A freeway is, therefore, not designated in this Plan. Major Highways The function of major highways is to expedite movement between relatively distant points of a community or region. These facilities generally have no access control but provide for through-traffic and large volumes of vehicular traff is (20,000 trips per day and more). A major east-west route through the Planning Area is currently provided by State Route 4. In addition to carrying local traffic, Highway 4 is the major facility linking East County communities with Stockton, central and west County and the greater San Francisco Bay Area. The Plan recognizes that growth in the Planning Area and through-traffic will not require new major highways. Instead the Plan provides for straightening existing Highway 4 in Oakley and for road widening and improvement. Further, since Highway 4 creates both a noise and traffic problem where it traverses the communities of Brentwood and Oakley, it is recommended that alternate routes in or around these communities be studied. Although the State has no formal plans for new major highways in East County, highway corridors are noted by the State along Vasco Road and Byron Highway and for a possible Highway 4 relocation. 35 000041"0 Arterials The arterial system connects major traffic generators within communities with each other by carrying traffic from collector streets to major highways and freeways. Arterials form a through-traffic network carrying intermediate distance trips and should be designed to accommodate moderate speeds. Traffic volumes on arterials generally range from 17,000 to 22,000 trips per day. Arterials in the Planning Area are shown on the Circulation Element Map. The majority of the arterials shown follow existing roads in the Planning Area. The routes shown but not presently developed are: the extension of Byron Highway to connect to Bethel Island Road, the extension of Laurel Road from Empire Road to Hillcrest Avenue, the extension of Eden Plains Road to Highway 4, the extension of O'Hara Avenue to the SPRR right-of-way, and the extension of Sand Hill Road from Highway 4 to the SPRR right-of-way. Collectors Collector streets serve internal traffic movements in the Planning Area and serve to collect traffic and carry it to arterials, and to shopping centers, schools and other traffic generators. Collectors generally carry between 9,000 and 12,000 trips per day. Except for arterials and minor streets, nearly all the remaining existing County roads in East County function as collectors and also constitute the future collector network. No new collectors are provided for by this Plan. Minor Streets Minor streets provide access to individual parcels of land and other elements in the road network and thus serve only local traffic. The demand for minor streets usually coincides with new development, and they are usually provided by developers in conformance with the County Subdivision Ordinance. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Existing public transportation in the Planning Area is provided primarily through five daily inbound and outbound trips by BARTD buses terminating at Brentwood, and two daily scheduled Greyhound Bus Lines trips through the area. Special van service to hospital patients and handicapped is also provided by private or non- profit groups. The provision of transit to the East County is considered highly desirable. A number of studies have analyzed transit needs, potential service by bus and van systems, and potential routing. The extension of BARTD rail service to the area is not deemed feasible during the planning period. 36 An East County Transit program has been established through a joint powers agreement between the County and the Cities of Antioch, Brentwood and cZ7ast Comn ;7rea, �, } I 0� generarpfan ! i EAST COUNTY CIRCULATION PLAN TO 1990 cr � d m �� \ -' Gateway Blvd State Hwy. Q cc N w a Cypress Rd. 1 It Rd Laurel 1 .c 1 2 Datta Rd Lone Tree Waycc f cc } i 4 fi A.T&&F.R.R. 'd. ) r Brentwood Ave. I'� v KI t t Balfour Rd. O -d V / C I Marsh Creek Rd. � state Hwy. 4 NO n tii��• 1 c�ee�9y IOo Diablo Rd. Cam i y� l � C 0 scale in taat 8,000 i LEGEND i' mOSININIONS Major Highway i' Arterial 1� ---- Proposed Arterial addition, there exist numerous sloughs connecting the Son Joaquin and Old Rivers with the larger bodies of water and with each other. The waterways open for public use and not in private ownership are defined as permanent open space. COMMUNITY FACILITIES ELEMENT All development, be it rural or urban in character, requires a number of supporting facilities and services. These facilities and services range from schools, recreation, fire and police protection to various types of water supply and sewage disposal, roads and flood protection. The type and level of facilities and services varies both by area and density of development; farms located on 100 acre parcels will require a different size of roads and pavement than a residential development with parcels of 10,000 square feet each; septic tanks can serve acreage, but not a house in a small-lot subdivision. Community facilities, in the context of this Plan, include the variety of facilities which are needed in relation to the kind and amount of development in the area. These services and facilities may be supplied by a public or semi-public agency. Every community_must have a water supply, a means of disposing of sewage, and schools, utilities and other community facilities. Each of these facilities has an ultimate design capacity which limits its service capability. As an area experiences urban growth the demand for facilities increases, and existing facilities become outmoded or do not have adequate capacity to meet the enlarged demand,. This element establishes the need for facilities to serve the land use and circulation patterns outlined in the Area General Plan. Services provided by public entities are analyzed in this Plan since they are directly related to the functions of local government, while the facilities and services provided by non-profit or other agencies are expected to be supplied as the need arises. Many of the facilites in the Planning Area are utilized at or beyond their design capacities, and must be expanded to meet the needs of the future development provided for in this Plan. Multiple purpose use of facilities is suggested to the maximum extent feasible, since it provides for more efficient use of tax revenues and avoids duplication of effort by a variety of agencies. Schools, park and recreation facilities are frequently designed for multiple use, though this principle applies also to recreation trail development and other public works such as drainageways, utility rights-of-way, commercial areas, scenic areas and historic landmarks. The Area General Plan projects the demand for the following facilities, based on population increases inherent in the Plan policies for the Planning Area: Educational Facilities Recreation Facilities Health Services and Facilities Utilities and Flood Control Facilities Protection Services and Facilities 39 000040 COMMUNITY FACILITIES t i ;- i i 1 / r � r 'd � t 0 scale in feet 12,000 e 1 m \ a � � Sum Hry.t --'' \ cvpn Rd ; i r 1 � 1 1 • 1 \ I ' Lang T'""by It t m � 1 i Abrar Cn+R RSL � Star Hwy.I e oma i • 9¢ LEGEND • Grammar Schools • High School O Libraries o Fire Houses A Boys Ranch eb 40 ' EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES Schools The East Contra Costa area is served by four elementary school districts: the Brentwood, Byron, Knightsen and Oakley School Districts. The Liberty Union High School District, with a high school in Brentwood and La Paloma Continu- ation High School located on Lone Tree Way, serve the total Planning Area. Existing schools are Brentwood Elementary, Edna Hill Elementary and Garin Elementary, all in Brentwood; Byron Elementary in Byron; Knightsen Elementary in Knightsen; and Gehringer Elementary and Oakley Middle Schools in Oakley. Total school enrollment in the Planning Area increased from 3,260 in 1962 to 4,250 students in 1975. Every school, with the exception of Liberty High School and Garin School, is presently operating below its design capacity. Percentage of space utilization ranges from a low of 76 percent at the Oakley School to a high of 103 percent at the Garin School. Planned growth pursuant to the Area General Plan will increase the number of school age children in the area by an estimated 7,000 to a total enrollment of 11,250 by 1990. This increase will require the construction of new facilities to provide additional student capacity. In addition, portions or all of some East County Schools will need replacement by the end of this Planning Period. Within the Brentwood Union School District all but two classrooms of Brentwood School and two-thirds of Edna Hill Elementary will need to be replaced. The Byron Elementary School will need replacement or renovation before that time as a result of a projected sharp enrollment increase caused by development at Discovery Bay. The Knightsen Elementary School, at most, will require replacement of its main building. Barring major school expansion, the Oakley Elementary School will require replacement by 1990, as will two-thirds of the facility at Liberty Union High School. The nearest institution of higher learning is Los Medonos Community College, a two-year college located in the City of Pittsburg. Libraries East County is served by three libraries located in Brentwood, Byron and Oakley and operated by the Contra Costa County Library System. On the basis of population related standards of the American Library Association, the present library facility in Brentwood is inadequate to serve existing demand. However, all libraries benefit from special County library services, including a central book depository, reference system and bookmobile service, so that the service level delivered is higher than statistics indicate. The County Library System considers present facilities inadequate to serve future growth of the Planning Area, however, new branch facility construction is contigent upon future policy decisions. One additional branch library facility may be required to serve a population of 20,000, if existing supplementary library services are continued. 41 000010 RECREATION FACILITIES Parks Two large State operated recreation areas are located at the northerly and southerly extremes of the Planning Area. Frank's Tract State Park, located in the northerly portion, covers an area of 3,310 acres — mostly open water. The park is maintained for water-oriented recreational activities such as fishing and boating. Clifton Court Forebay, developed jointly by the Department of Water Resources and Department of Fish and Game, is located in the southeasterly portion of the Planning Area. While not a park in the true sense, the Forebay covers 2,200 acres of water and 8 miles of shoreline, and is used for bank fishing and water fowl hunting. Approximately 100 acres of adjacent dry land are also available for the development of facilities. A short distance outside the Planning Area three major parks are located.--Mt. Diablo State Park (under the jurisdiction of the State Parks and Recreation Department), Contra Loma Regional Park and Coal Mines Regional Park (under the jurisdiction of the East Bay Regional Parks District). Only three local park facilities exist in the entire Planning Area. These are Brentwood Park (a neighborhood park of 4 acres), a tot lot on Curtis Drive (also in Brentwood), and a 3 acre park developed on part of the Oakley School grounds. Recreational features include playgrounds, playfields and picnic facilities. Neighborhood parks, playgrounds and tot lots should be provided in the Planned Communities when urban density development is undertaken on the basis of full utility services. Two proposed wildlife areas in East County are designated by the Resources Agency of California. One is a wildlife management area located at Big Break, and the other is a wildlife and scenic area in the vicinity of Old River near Holland Tract and Quimby Island. Both areas will serve as wildlife refuges and low use-intensity recreation areas. Sport Fishing The waters of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta support rich and important fishery resources. Fishery studies usually relate to the entire Delta, not to specific counties. Although the Planning Area encompasses only about 10 percent of the Delta Region, the recreational and fisheries value of the Planning Area is enhanced by the presence of three large bodies of water; Big Break, Frank's Tract and Clifton Court Forebay . Commercial fishing in the Delta has been closed since 1953 due to conflicts with sports fishing. However, the King salmon which migrate through the Delta from upstream spawning grounds account for approximately eighty percent of the State's eight million pound commercial marine salmon catch. Other sports fish 42 in the Delta are the American shad (an introduced species) and white sturgeon. Delta resident game fish are striped bass, white catfish, brown bullheads, black crappies, blue gill and largemouth bass. Marinas Thirty marinas or harbors exist in the Planning Area, all privately owned. They vary in size, services and facilities; some moor less than 20 boats and offer few services, while other moor over 300 boats and offer a wide range of services and facilities including boat repair, camping and picnic sites, air strips, loundromats, grocery stores, boat rentals, restaurants, etc. The quality of the marinas varies; many offer facilities in good repair, protection from high winds, deep, wide channels for ease of access, competent service crews, etc., have very few vacancies and often have waiting lists. The Plan assumes development of additional marina facilities along the recreation waterways in response to market demand. Historic Sites The major historic site in East County is the John Marsh Home on Marsh Creek Road. The County owns the home site, which covers more than 7 acres. It was purchased by the Cowell foundation and subsequently deeded to the County in 1960. The site is on the National Historic Register. HEALTH SERVICES AND FACILITIES The nearest hospital facilities serving the Planning Area are Delta Memorial (a 53 bed private hospital in Antioch) and Pittsburg Community (a 78 bed hospital in Pittsburg). The Brentwood Health Center, a semi-public health facility, is also located in the Planning Area. This clinic facility provides medical, psychiatric, pediatric and prenatal care services. The clinic is staffed by County personnel and doctors as well as a doctor from the National Health Service. The County Health Department provides to the area periodic clinics, public health nursing services and sanitation services. Private medical resources are limited in the Planning Area. It is serviced by three physicians, three dentists and one optometrist. Two private rest homes, Lone Tree Rest Haven (50 beds) and A and R Rest Home (12 beds) are located within the Planning Area. The small and scattered existing population of the East County area does not warrant a hospital facility of its own, according to the hospital standards of the Bay Area Comprehensive Health Planning Council. These standards state that a remote low density area warrants one 50-bed facility, and that a health facility planning area with a 50,000 to 70,000 population warrants a 75-bed facility. 43 000040 UTILITIES AND FLOOD CONTROL FACILITIES Water Facilities Treated Water Supply The City of Brentwood Water District and the Oakley County Water District are the two major suppliers of treated water in the East County area. The remainder of the area is served by private wells. Oakley Count4 Water District. At present, the Oakley County Water District services the Oakley residential area and the industrial area north of Oakley. Approximately 6,000 acres are served by the district, of which 600 acres are under water at Big Break. The present population of the district is approxi- mately 2,600; there are 800 connections, with over 75 percent of the total yearly water demand supplied to one industry (E. I. DuPont). Source of water for the District treatment plant is the Contra Costa Canal. The plant capacity is 4.3 million gallons per day (MGD), and total treated water storage is 480,000 gallons. The facility operates with excess capacity and could serve an additional 11,800 persons. If heavy industrial water demand stays at present levels, and light industrial demand increases only slightly and is thus comparable to residential demand, the future increase in water demand pursuant to the Area General Plan would not be large enough to require a new facility in the Oakley County Water District. City of Brentwood. Although the City of Brentwood was incorporated in 1948, it did not supply its own water until 1966 when it purchased Contra Costa Water District #1. Today, the population of Brentwood numbers over 3,700 and the service area is approximately 1,190 acres. Users must be located within the city limits or must be annexed to the city. Applicants for water service must agree to pay all off-site and on-site improvements costs for water facilities. Brentwood is the only municipal district in the County which relies solely upon wells for its water supply. Water is drawn from three wells, ranging between 30 and 200 feet in depth, and is used without additional treatment. The system has an available water storage of 150,00 gallons. Other Water Suppliers. Twenty-four small water companies, with over 800 connections supply water to the Byron-Knightsen plain and Bethel Island area. The remaining demand is supplied by individual wells, and it is expected that future low density residential growth will also be serviced by private wells. Wells are an unreliable source of water in many parts of East County, since the ground water table fluctuates and lowers in dry years. When development occurs, in areas such as Bethel Island, a public water supply will be required to allow for connections as required by the development criteria for residential use described by this Plan. 44 Untreated Water Supply Three agencies in the Planning Area deliver raw water for irrigation and other uses: the Contra Costa County Water District, the East Contra Costa Irrigation District and the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District. Contra Costa County Water District. The Contra Costa County Water District was formed in 1936 to contract witF the Bureau of Reclamation for the purchase and distribution of water from the Contra Costa Canal unit of the Central Valley Project. The District acts primarily as a wholesaler in the Planning Area, leaving local distribution to its customers and to its own Treated Water Division. Customers in the Planning Area include the Oakley County Water District and agricultural water users. The district contains a large portion of the Planning Area and could develop a surface water supply for additional lands. East Contra Costa Count4 Irri ation District. The East Contra Costa County Irrigation District, formed in 19Z5, services ,000 acres of agricultural lands in the Brentwood area. The district diverts 37,000 acre-feet a year from Indian Slough in the Delta. In addition, it maintains wells which produce 2,500 acre- feet a year for irrigation and 2,500 acre-feet for water table control. Br on-Bethan .Irri ation District. The Byron-Bethany Irrigation District, form- ed 1919, serves 17,UU0 acres of agricultural lands in Contra Costa, Alameda and San Joaquin Counties. A 10,500 acre portion of the district service area lies in Contra Costa. The District diverts 39,500 acre feet a year from the Delta slough region, of which 22,000 are supplied to lands in Contra Costa County. A drainage system returns spent water to the Delta at Indian Slough. Sanitary Sewer Facilities Five sanitary sewer districts in the East County (Brentwood, Byron, County District #15, County District #19 and Oakley Sanitation Districts) in 1975 operated four plants and served 7,690 persons. Only the Oakley and Brentwood districts serve sizeable populations. Future available plant capacity in the Planning Area varies with construction of the Oakley-Bethel Island subregional sewer plant. Without this subregions) facility total area sewerage capacity is 14,300 persons, whereas with the Bethel Island plant total sewerage capacity could range from 20,000 to 23,400 persons. Much of the capacity of the Oakley-Bethel Island plant will be utilized to serve existing development on the island and south of Dutch Slough. City of Brentwood The Brentwood Sanitary District, formed in 1960, was taken over by the City of Brentwood in 1966. The present system serves 3,660 persons and consists of trickling filters and ponds with effluent being discharged for irrigation. The system capacity is approximately 7,500 persons. The City's treatment plant was enlarged and improved in 1971, and currently meets Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. 45 00001 Byron Sanitary District This district serves the small unincorporated town of Byron located in the southeastern portion of the County. The treatment system consists of a septic tank and percolation field and has a capacity for a population equivalent of 1,400 persons. County Sanitation District 15 County Sanitation District 15 was formed in 1967 to serve the recreational areas of Bethel Island and Sand Mound Slough. This system is funded with portions under construction in 1978;The plans call for the construction of a 6 inch force main and treatment facility with a capacity of 100,000 gallons. Treated effluent will be disposed of by sprinkler irrigation. The plant is planned for a capacity of 2,900 persons, but ultimate capacity could potentially be expanded to the equivalent of 6,300 persons. Although these facilities will be built to serve existing development in the District, the plant is capable of being expanded to accept sewage also from planned new development. County Sanitation District 19 This District was organized in 1968 to serve the Discovery Bay development in the Byron Tract area. Construction of the system, including treatment facili- ties, was finished in 1972. The system presently has capacity for a population equivalent of 3,700 persons. Plans call for expansion of the plant to service the future development of Discovery Bay. Oakley Sanitary District This system provides service to approximately 2,800 persons in the area east of Antioch. Current treatment consists of a septic tank and stabilization ponds; effluent is discharged into Big Break. Pians were made in 1970 for a southwesterly expansion of the District, which would incorporate much of Oakley and lands to the south. In 1974 the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board issued an order providing construction plans for an adequate treatment plant to be completed in the late seventies. The East/Central Contra Costa County Waste Water Management Program calls for construction of a new treatment plant in Oakley, with an ultimate design capacity able to serve a population of up to 6,000 persons with recent improvements. The policies of the Area General Plan provide for an East County population of 25,000 persons by 1990. If the Oakley-Bethel Island regional plant is built, the excess demand of 7,700 persons would have to be serviced by septic tanks or through expansion of the existing sewer treatment facilities. Restrictions for single family housing on septic flanks will require that residential growth serviced by septic tanks must consist of low density lots with a minimum size of one acre where water services are available. 46 Solid Waste Disposal Facilities The East County area is served by two private solid "waste'disposal service- companies. Both dispose of solid waste at the Pittsburg dump site.- This'land filli- operation consists of 25 acres and will be filled 'in* between 13-to` 5' years, Alternate disposal sites have not been selected. The County's Solid `Waste'- Management Plan contemplates Countywide collection of solid waste for disposal'1. at a facility of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District; which-'would also. serve East County. Semi=Public Facilities Telephone, electric power, and natural gas supplies are provided' in East-County- by private companies upon consumer request. Telephone The Pacific Telephone Company maintains five business offices in the East.-- County area. There are few constraints on the ability of the telephone company to expand its services, and no difficulty is anticipated-in serving ;the land.use patterndesignated in this Area General Plan. Electric'Power 1 Electricity in the East County area is provided by Pocific Gas'�and ,Electric' Company (P.G. & E.). Five generating plants sited in Contra Costa Count at Avon, Antioch, Martinez, Oleum and Pittsburg collectively supply`power'to the County. The two newest plants, Antioch and Pittsburg; provide over 90 'percent' of''the total output of all five plants. The Antioch and Pittsburg`plants'are-being converted from natural gas to a crude oil for fuel, the remaining`plants continue to'operate on natural gas. Appropriate service can beprovided'to all develop=( ment.proposed in the Plan. Natural Gas Supply Pacific Gas and Electric Company also provides natural gds to_the Ecsf C6ntra 1 Costa County area. Supplies of natural gas are becoming increasing limited; aiidli more 'restrictive policies are being applied to the extensionoU service 'to•new users. While most new development of urban districtswill probably'continue'toy' be eligible to receive natural gas, low density areas and certain non-residential ' uses may have to rely on alternate energy.sources. Flood Control Facilities The Large number of waterways and low ground elevation render many areas in_ the East County subject to drainage problems and result`in the need for major flood control and storm drainage facilities. Ther Contra Costa.County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is the lead agency for'constructin'g' flood control and drainage works in the County. They have defined the Planning' Area in four flood plain zones, and have prepared zone plans for =flood contr'of 47, management. 0000:.0 The southernmost watershed and flood control zone in the County is the Marsh- Kellogg Watershed which extends from Mt. Diablo's easterly slopes to the border of the Delta region east of Byron. Prior to recent improvements along Marsh Creek, the area suffered repeated flooding and sediment problems due to overflow of the creek channel. The resulting standing water would remain until it evaporated, percolated into the ground, or was pumped away, damaging or destroying crops in the area. Four flood control dams and channel improvements have been constructed along Marsh Creek, Day Creek, Deer Creek and Sand Creek. They are provided by Flood Control Zones I and 2 and are designed to control flood waters of a 50-year flood. This level of control is acceptable for agricultural needs and meets the standards of the Contra Costa County Flood Control Department. The future adequacy of existing flood control measures is not related to population levels, but instead to the amount of developed land impervious to water percolation. Since the southerly half of East County is not designated for higher density development, there will not be major demand for future expansion of flood control facilities in the Mt. Diablo-Byron region of the watershed. The second and most critical flood damage area in the East County is the Delta region, which consists of many reclaimed islands below sea level which are separated from surrounding river channels by levees. These islands are subject to levee breaks, which can result in the long-term flooding of entire islands. The Delta is part of the San Joaquin River flood plain which extends from north of Oakley and Knightsen southeasterly along the easterly boundary of the County. Flood prevention in this area is dependent on the quality of maintenance and design of levees. The levees are managed by two processes which result in differing levels of flood prevention. Direct-agreement levees are engineered and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to agreement with the state, and these levees meet the Corps' standards for safety and dependability. The second type of levee, non-project levees, are privately designed and maintained by individual water reclamation districts. No specific maintenance standards or regulations exist for many non-project levees. Levees are currently maintained at levels that range from adequate to inadequate. Problems such as lack of soil compaction, inadequate thickness and unstable slopes are indications of levee instability. The County Flood Control District estimates that an average of four feet of additional height, as well as certain structural improvements, would be needed to bring the inadequate levees up to the U.S. Corps of Engineers standards. PROTECTION SERVICES AND FACILITIES Fire Fire protection in the Planning Area is provided primarily by four fire districts: Bethel Island, Brentwood, Byron and Oakley Fire Protection Districts. The Bethel Island District employs a full-time paid chief and assistant chief; all other staff of the fire districts are volunteers. The major problems of the fire districts relate to the large area to be protected and the limited availability of 48 water. These factors require that much of the equipment be comprised of tankers to transport large water supplies and brush pickup equipment to fight isolated brush and range fires. All fire district building sites are rated "good", and all but Brentwood have good expansion potential. Fire insurance ratings in the East County are among the highest in the County. The need for future expansion of fire fighting services is generally related to the type, size and intensity of various land uses rather than population numbers. It is often less expensive to provide fire protection to agricultural, single family and commercial/recreation land; more expensive for public/semi-public lands; and most expensive for commercial/retail and industrial land. The Area General Plan land use configuration will probably cause the fire protection needs of East County to increase as land use will change in intensity from agricultural use to residential and commercial use. It can be assumed that volunteer firemen will continue to serve the area but additional equipment consisting of one pumper and two tankers will be needed by the Oakley Fire District. Major new equipment will probably not be required for the other districts. Eventually, the East County area will probably also have to employ a permanent salaried fire protection staff. SAFETY ELEMENT Policies of the Countywide Safety Element of the General Plan also apply in the Planning Area. Major policies impacting the development pattern of this Area General Plan include the following: Geologic hazards should be fully considered in the planning of industrial development located just east of Bridgehead Road and north of the Santa Fe Railroad; development of reclaimed lands in the Delta islands and below the 10 foot elevation; on landslide deposits found in small areas near Marsh Creek Reservoir and east of Vasco Road; and on slopes over 26 percent east of Deer Valley Road, north of Marsh Creek Road, and east of Vasco Road. Flood hazards should be fully evaluated and development containing human habitation avoided in areas where flood protection is required and can not be provided. This would be applicable to reclaimed lands not adequately protected by levees, and areas of creek overflow. Federal Flood Insurance requirements must be satisfied within Flood Hazard Areas designated by the Federal government or other areas known to be flood prone. Areas subject to flooding by standing water should be drained adequately or not developed other than for agricultural and other open space uses. Hazards related to land uses such as petroleum and chemical industries, oil and gas wells, petroleum product and natural gas pipelines, and the transportation of hazardous materials by road, rail and water should be considered. The Safety Element designates a location near the E. I. DuPont plant east of the Antioch Bridge as a "Safe Stopping Place" for hazardous materials. 49 0000110 SEISMIC SAFETY ELEMENT The major faults which bisect the East County Planning Area are the Antioch- Davis fault zone and the Midland Fault zone; the former is considered active and the latter potentially active. The Antioch-Davis fault system trends northerly through the hilly westerly portion of the Planning Area. The Midland fault zone, which trends approximately north-northwest, is believed to extend from the southeasterly corner of Contra Costa County northward through the easterly portion of the Planning Area to the Yolo-Solono County lines near Winters. The policies of the Countywide Seismic Safety Element apply to the Planning Area. The design of development and site preparation should give consideration to the existence of these faults in the Planned Communities around Oakley and Byron, and the Recreation Community on Bethel Island. Seismic ground shaking and liquefaction potential should be considered on Modern Sediments and Younger Alluvium in the East County area. NOISE ELEMENT The Countywide Noise Element indicates that residential areas and schools are adversely impacted by transportation noise (in Oakley and Brentwood). The element provides noise contours for both existing and 1990 noise levels. Development within these contours should be designed to provide appropriate attenuation of noise. Similarly, consideration of noise radiation from stationary sources should be a major determinant for major industrial and commercial development. 50 IMPLEMENTATION The purpose of this chapter is to establish a program for implementing Area General Plan proposals following the Plan's adoption. This Plan is developed for a period extending to 1990. During this period it may have to be amended to reflect conditions not now anticipated. Further, to insure that the Plan is current and up-to-date, it is recommended that it be reviewed periodically. The implementation of the plan requires a number of actions. By subject matter these actions include: AGRICULTURE REQUIRED IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES Agricultural Core Area 1. Revise agricultural zoning in the agricultural core to require 10 acre minimum parcel size. Agricultural-Recreation Area 1. Revise agricultural zoning in the Agricultural-Recreational Area to require 20 acre minimum parcel size. 2. Adopt an agricultural zoning ordinance appropriate to the 20 acre minimum. 3. Prepare and administer criteria for development of recreation uses along waterways in the Delta area. Agricultural-Residential Area I. Revise agricultural zoning in the Agricultural-Residential Area to require 5 acre minimum parcel size. Measures Applicable to All Agricultural Land Use Categories 1. Initiate a study on the issue of agricultural parcel size and viability after the adoption of the East County Area General Plan. This study to include the development of criteria for and delineation of areas in which non-conforming lot sizes prevail. 2. Support state legislation to assess real property taxes on use (agricultural as a "highest and best use") and not potential urban value. 3. Review present zoning districts and rezone where applicable to make zoning reflective of use and consistent with the General Plan. 51 000().10 4. Revise the designations of the agriculture zoning districts to reflect the minimum allowable parcel size. S. Review the Williamson Contract Program as to its effectiveness in achieving the stated goals in the East County Planning Area, namely the avoidance of real property tax burden on agricultural uses which forces their conversion to suburban uses. 6. Develop a flood plain zoning ordinance. 7. Limit installation of major roads which will be detrimental to agriculture. 8. Encourage and support State and Federal water reclamation projects and physical development projects which would increase, enhance and protect agricultural lands. 9. Establish a development standards policy for required improvements in each agricultural land use category. PLANNED COMMUNITY REQUIRED IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES 1. Require connection to urban utilities and facilities. 2. Review existing zoning within each Planned Community as to its conformity to Area General Plan land use categories. 3. Revise zoning to reflect use and consistency with the General Plan 4. Develop the incremental phasing program for physical growth. S. Establish a development standards policy for each Planned Community. RECREATION COMMUNITY REQUIRED IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES I. Require connection to community sewer and water facilities before urban development is allowed. 2. Require detailed geologic and engineering reports as a prerequisite for considering the approval of public and private development. 3. Revise zoning to reflect use and consistency with the General Plan. 4. Develop on incremental phasing program for physical growth. S. Establish a development standards policy for the Recreation Community. 52 ADDITIONAL IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES I. Prepare a Specific Plan for Bethel Island to guide its future growth. RECREATION REQUIRED IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES I. Adopt a local park acreage standard. 2. Provide a public agency mechanism to utilize existing procedures for distributing park dedication fees to appropriate East County areas. ADDITIONAL IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES I. Study the potential for an East County Recreation District to provide for the recreation needs of the area. 2. Support and encourage state efforts toward creating a developed State Park at Frank's Tract State Recreation Area. 3. Study waterways for a waterways trail plan. CIRCULATION REQUIRED IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES I. Review road and right-of-way widths in East County for compatibility with General Plan development policies. 2. Obtain road widenings and appropriate road improvements as land is devel- oped. 3. Initiate a program of correcting road deficiencies on existing roads. 4. Coordinate road development and improvement programs with local and State agencies. COMMUNITY FACILITIES REQUIRED IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES I. Coordinate development and facility requirements with the applicable agen- cies. 2. Participate in applicable local and regional facility studies. 3. Initiate a study of the multiple use aspects of community facilities directed at maximizing the use of each site. 53 0000,A_(-) 4. Initiate a countywide community facilities study to insure compatibility of facility development throughout the County. 5. Devise a phasing program for the provision of facilities and services. 6. Work closely with the school districts in providing for the adequate expansion of services. ADDITIONAL IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES 1. Study the feasibility of consolidating service districts in the Planning Area, including school and fire protection districts. 2. Coordinate the activities of service areas and districts. 3. Study and develop a policy to require servicing capability as a condition of development. 54 APPENDIX A 55 000040 TABLE A-1 EAST COUNTY GENERAL PLAN POPULATION BY AGE GROUP, 1960, 1970, 1975 1960 1970 1975 AGE GROUP Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 0 to 9 2,520 21.6% 2,399 17.8% 2,287 15.0% 10 to 19 2,149 18.5 2,868 20.6 3,198 21.0 20 to 44 3,652 31.5 4,025 28.9 4,760 31.3 45 to 64 2,366 20.4 3,166 22.5 3,270 21.5 65 and Over 931 8.0 1,481 10.7 1,713 11.2 TOTAL 11,618 100.0% 13,889 100.0% 15,228 100.0% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 1975 Contra Costa County Special Census. TABLE A-2 EAST COUNTY GENERAL PLAN POPULATION COMPOSITION BY RACE, 1960, 1970, 1975 Percent Percent Percent Race 1960 of Total 1970 of Total 1975 of Total White 8,484 73.0% 9,550 68.8% 11,944 78.4% Black 19 ' .2 17 .1 67 .5 Spanish Surname 2,827 24.3 3,751 27.0 2,653 17.4 Other 288 2.5 571 4.1 564 3.7 TOTAL 11,618 100.0% 13,899 100.0% 15,228 100.0% Source: U.S.Bureau of the Census 1975 Contra Costa County Special Census. 56 TABLE A-3 EAST COUNTY GENERAL PLAN SUMMARY OF HOUSING STATISTICS APRIL, 1970 CENSUS TRACT HOUSING 3010 3020 3031 3032 3040 TOTAL COUNTY TOTAL INDICATORS Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total DWellinaUnits 1,177 100.0% 1,470 100.0% 1,102 100.0% 655 100.0% 448 100.0% 4,852 100.0% 178,384 100.0% Year Round 1,167 99.2 1,466 99.8 1,077 97.7 650 99.2 443 98.9 4,803 98.9 178,312 99.9 Seasonal h Migratory 10 0.8 4 0.2 25 2.3 5 0.8 5 1.1 49 1.1 72 0.1 Occupled 827 70.3 1,411 96.0 1,032 93.6 629 96.0 426 95.1 4,325 89.1 172,951 96.9 Owner Occupied 650 78.6 879 62.3 602 54.6 417 66.3 252 59.1 2,800 64.7 120,018 69.4 Renter Occupied 177 21.4 532 37.7 430 29.0 212 33.7 174 40.9 1,525 35.3 52,933 30.6 Vacant Units 350 29.7 59 4.0 70 6.4 26 4.0 22 4.9 527 10.9 5,433 3.1 Median House Values $21,300 $17,300 $18,500 19,200 $18,200 $18,900 $25,700 Median Contract Rent $86 $66 $69 $66 $72 $70 $124 Source:Prepared from 1970 Census Bureau data by Contra Costo County Planning Department. d V v, OD TABLE A-4 EAST COUNTY GENERAL PLAN HOUSING INVENTORY, 1970-1975 Multi-Family Multi-Family Units Census Single Family (2-4 in structure) (5+ in building) Mobile Homes Total Units Tract 4/1/70 4/10/75 4/1/70 4/10/75 4/1/70 4/10/75 4/1/70 4/10/75 4/1/70 4/10/75 3010 821 829 82 124 8 0 237 231 1,148 1,208 3020 1,241 1,395 118 95 34 44 135 258 1,528 1,793 3031 969 1,155 53 93 65 183 9 32 1,096 1,464 3032 500 664 70 72 9 8 75 161 654 905 3040 350 448 25 21 -- -- 62 81 437 550 Total 3,881 4,491 348 405 116 235 518 763 4,863 5,920 Percent of Total 79.81% 75.9% 7.16% 6.8% 2.39% 4.0% 10.65% 12.8% 100.0% 100.0% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1975 Contra Costa County Special Census. TABLE A-5 EAST COUNTY GENERAL PLAN POVERTY LEVEL AND HOUSING INDICATORS APRIL, 1970 East County Total Families 3,831 .0 Families Below Poverty Level 506.0 Percent of Total Families Below Poverty Level 1.3.2% Total Families in Housing Authority Units 210.0 Percent of Poverty Level Families in Housing Authority Units 41 .5% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. TABLE A-6 EAST COUNTY GENERAL PLAN CONTRA COSTA HOUSING AUTHORITY UNITS JANUARY 1 , 1970 to JANUARY 1, 1974 TOTAL OCCUPIED UNITS Area I/I/70 1/1/74 CONVENTIONAL HOUSING Brentwood Area 44 44 Oakley 30 30 Oakley (elderly only) 40 40 TOTAL 114 114 LEASED HOUSING Oakley Area 96 137 TOTAL 96 137 TOTAL EAST COUNTY 210 251 Source: Contra Costa County Housing Authority. 59 0000,10 APPENDIX B f 61 000040 TABLE B-I EAST COUNTY GENERAL PLAN EXISTING LAND USE (1974) LAND USE CATEGORY ACRES RESIDENTIAL 2,223 Single Family and Related 1,999 Multiple Family and Related 36 Mobile Home 61 Mobile Home Park 114 Group Quarters 13 COMMERCIAL 490 Retail Business and Related 235 Commercial/Recreation 255 INDUSTRIAL 591 Light Industry 137 Heavy Industry 104 Mineral Extraction 350 PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC 716 Public/Semi-Public 213 Utilities 503 OPEN SPACE 111 ,703 Agricultural 999201 Intensive 56,549 Extensive 42,652 Vacant 8,860 Water 3,312 Recreation 330 OTHER 1 ,829 Roads and Streets 1,618 Railroad 211 TOTAL ACREAGE 117,552 Source: Contra Costa County Planning Department. 62 Y TABLE B-2 EAST COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AGRICULTURAL CORE AREA PRIME SOILS SOIL TYPE CLASS* Brentwood Clay Loam, Wet (130 1-1 Brentwood Clay Loam, 0-2 Percent Slope (Bb) Ilw-2 Capay Clay, 0-2 Percent Slope (CaA) IIs-5 Capay Clay, Wet, 0-2 Percent Slope (CbA) Ilw-5 Clear Lake Clay (Cc) Its-5 Rincon Clay Loam, 0-2 Percent Slope (RbA) IIs-3 Rincon Clay Loam, Wet, 0-2 Percent Slope (RcA) Ilw-2 Sorrento Silty Clay Loam (Sm) 1-1 Sorrento Silty Clay Loam, Sand Substratum Its-0 Sycamore Silty Clay Loam (So) 1-1 Sycamore Silty Clay Loam, Clay Substratum (Sp) Ilw-2 *Capability classes of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service are indicated by Roman numerals I through Vill. The numerals indicate progressively greater limitations and narrower choices for practical use, defined as fol lows: Class I soils have few limitations that restrict their use. Class II soils have some limitations that reduce the choice of plants that require moderate conservation practices. Source: U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 63 0000,10 App�Np1X C r� 65 .�� Q��:� N L > > > > > u 0 0 0 0 0 0 o H 0 0 0 0 0 o a m a a a a a a— a CL Q r r r H H w O QI L L L V^ V L y VLL U U J U � Ua U :01U ,a e� an do— =E = E 0 0 0 oc o ; mvn m mV VQ 0 000 a 'D a w a o no. U U t° uo. V U t3 CL c W vuu uco u vv v a:u 0 in to� Qti Oa d E vo O h N CO .,p M O p N .On z O U qc c n r c0 M NLn t 0 a Cav n o co n co n a rn c c c o No+ rn d m cc c0 O j a o c u 0 Ln N — 6 O m co LA %n .zr N N cn %n .Y U ' w L J LLI ^ ` cd U _r pp pp qOy O Z - a u ^ <w U c a F- U J J D ? We vi cn CO N E �Q Z LL ` lt!J '^ uo o }r 0 a z� ,, a C)0 U ^ 3 c u '0H- 0 V H U. � L ` 0V oyc iQQX �+.. f ` 66 f-ui w no m m Y 0 J u�i TABLE C-2 EAST COUNTY GENERAL PLAN PLANNED LAND USE LAND USE ACRES AGRICULTURE 100,578 Agricultural Core 14,571 Agriculture Recreation 32, 1 1 1 Agriculture Residential 53,896 PLANNED COMMUNITY 81893 Oakley/Sand Hill 5,225 Discovery Bay 1,783 Brentwood (Incorporated) and Sphere 1 ,669 Byron 143 Knightsen 73 RECREATION.COMMUNITY 1;625 Bethel Island/Sand Mound Slough 1 ,625 INDUSTRY 551 RECREATION 719 PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC 245 WATER AREAS 4,941 TOTAL 117,552 Source: Contra Costa County Planning Department, April 1978. 67 000( . t� eo TABLE C-3 EAST COUNTY GENERAL PLAN, PLANNED LAND USE ON A COMMUNITY BASIS LAND USE (IN ACRES) Single Family Multiple Family Light Public/ Urban/ Residential Residential Industry Commercial Semi-Public Rural Planned Community Oakley/Sand Hill 4,757 156 56 189 72 Knightsen 39 -- 23 2 9 Byron 105 11 10 9 8 Discovery Bay 1,451 91 -- 134 107 Brentwood 1005 -- -- -- -- 664 Recreation Community Bethel Island/Sand Mound Slough 1,431 49 144 Source: Contra Costa County Planning Department, April 1978 Board of Supervisors �✓ot1tt'a County Administration Building Box 911 { Costa . w. . , �cr s Martine. California 94553 //--��! �� County ` oC726`774 ,; ; �- 13 pa AS q`'or?SSsEb tp F*ft Board of Supervisors Contra Con County Administration Building l Box 911C + �r�,111V Martinez, California 94553 os a !�? r OCT 6'77 County r w iiTq� SOT G ��'✓;�r�qg John WC; Ro ayne qpp,�. CE 1450 Creek ide, Suite 94 ae�E T�Ftp Walnut Cre , CA 94596 Rw� �, I r • BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA In the Matter of AMENDMENT OF THE COUNTY ) GENERAL PLAN IN THE ) RESOLUTION NO. 78/318 EAST COUNTY AREA ) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT: A copy of Resolution No. 56-1977 adopted by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission is on file with this Board, in which Resolution the Commission sets forth its report on the proposed amendment to the County General Plan for the East County area. On December 6, 1977 and January 23, 1978, the Board of Supervisors held public hearings on the East County Area General Plan. On January 23, 1978 the Board closed the public hearing on the draft plan and requested Supervisor Eric H. Hasseltine to analyze the testimony presented at the hearings and make a recommendation to the Board. Supervisor Hasseltine recommended that nine potential changes, as contained in the Board order dated February 21, 1978, be submitted to the Planning Commission for its review and report to the Board. On March 28, 1978, the Board of Supervisors discussed the Commission's report on the Board referral and deferred decisions on same until this date (April 4, 1978). The Board hereby adopts the amendment to the County General Plan for the East County area, including both the filed draft plan text and maps and modifications contained in the Board's referral of February 21, 1978 and the Planning Commission report on-same dated March 21, 1978 with the following exceptions: 1. The southwesterly portion of the Lauritzen property, underlain by Delhi Sands, is to be shown in the Industry designation. 2. Lands presently zoned R-B south of Bethel Island to Sand Mound Road (part of Cinquini property, and property across Bethel Island Road from same), is to be shown in the Commercial designation. 3. Add the following as the last paragraph under Oakley-Brentwood Planned Community on page 20 of the East County Area General Plan: "Lands adjoining the city limits of Brentwood, both inside and outside the Planned Community, are considered in a Holding Area—the County General Plan designation within this holding area is subject. to review in the event of annexation to the city. Subject to the above changes, the final copy of the plan maps and text reflecting this amendment on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board shall be endorsed approved by the Clerk as provided thereon. The Board concurs with the findings of the EIR. that the project would have certain environmental effects but finds the project justified for the following reasons: The project as recommended for adoption was deemed the most favorable alternative when all impacts were considered. This plan incorporates a stronger emphasis on the preservation of prime agricultural lands than the County General Plan adopted in 1963. Social and economic factors, the recognition of approved developments, and the emphasis on staged infilling of development into areas with availability of sewer and water services render the approved plan environmentally superior to the previously adopted County General Plan for this area; and The Board of Supervisors finds that the following significant impacts would result from implementation of the project and adopts the associated mitigation measures to minimize those impacts to the greatest possible degree. The Viability of Agriculture: Viability of agriculture in East Contra Costa County is impacted by numerous factors. Some of the major factors include small minimum parcel size which causes high costs of operation, scattered residential development which inhibits some standard farm practices and potential conflicts between recreational and agricultural uses. Smaller parcels are more expensive to farm because of the higher cost 0000110 of moving farm equipment from parcel to parcel, limitations in the manner in which insecticides and fertilizer may be distributed and the inability of small parcels to support the cost of mechanical harvesting equipment. The Board of Supervisors finds that: The Agriculture industry is of great importance to the economic base of the East County Area and to the County as a whole, and establishes as its primary objective, in concert with the East County Area General Plan, the preservation and enhancement of soils suitable for agriculture. The question of appropriate parcel size adequate for agriculture viability is a complex one. Economically feasible agricultural units depend on several variables. The Board of Supervisors, therefore, has added the following recommendation to the East County Area General Plan, under Required Implementation Measures; "Initiate a study on the issue of parcel size and agricultural viability after the adoption of the East County Area General Plan." Additionally, the plan calls for the doubling of the existing minimum parcel size in the Agricultural Core area and a quadrupling of size in the Agriculture-Recreational district. The Planning Commission is directed to review the minimum parcel size criteria for the Williamson Act program to determine if modifications should be made to further encourage the use of this program and to protect agriculture in the East County area; and, lastly, the addition of criteria for recreational uses in the area designated for Agriculture- Recreation will reduce conflicts between these two major uses. Planned Community Holding Capacity: The population holding capacity of the areas designated as Planned Communities is well above the population anticipated during the Planning Period. Moreover, land use in the Planned Communities is heavily oriented toward residential uses based upon commuting trips to places of work. There is no balance between housing and employment in the Planning Area. The Board of Supervisors finds that: The Plan anticipates a population of 25,000 in the Planning Area by 1990. The provision of excess holding capacity, within reasonable limits, is desirable to afford developers and residents a variety of choice and options. In order to direct growth in a logical manner and to minimize the impacts of development on remaining agricultural lands in the interim, a phasing mechanism for growth is built into this Plan for the Oakley-Sandhill portion of the Oakley-Brentwood Planned Community. The following policies provide appropriate phasing of development: New development is encouraged to take place within the Oakley County Water District and Oakley Sanitary District boundaries, basically north of Laurel Road, as an infilling process and in a contiguous manner where water and sewer mains can be efficiently extended. The area designated for Single Family Residential-Low Density uses, south of Laurel Road, should be considered as interim agriculture since viable agricultural units exist here and the area is not necessary to accommodate growth to 1990. This interim agriculture status should be reviewed periodically. This portion of the Planned Community should be considered for urban development (subdivision) only when all of the following criteria are met: a. The contiguous Planned Community area is largely developed; i.e., most of the area in Oakley north of Laurel Road is built out at the residential densities assigned by the General Plan. b. Adequate utility capacity is available and service lines or trunks are in proximity to the area. e. Costs. of providing the development with public services, including street improvements, are fully assumed by the developer. This plan phasing has been incorporated into the plan text. Absence of Guidelines for the Agriculture-Residential Area: The proposed plan does not establish criteria or guidelines for evaluating the appropriateness of subdivision appli- cations in the area designated "Agriculture-Residential." Premature development of outlying portions of the Agriculture-Residential area could result in scattered, inefficient and potentially costly development in terms of public services. 000040 . 0 The Board of Supervisors finds that without specific guidelines and criteria set forth, continued pressures for parcel divisions and development will persist. The Board recommends that this issue be addressed as part of the recommended study on Agricultural Viability to be undertaken following the adoption of the General Plan. Air Quality: East County lies within a "critical air basin" as defined by the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District. As East County is transformed from a rural area to an increasingly suburban highway-oriented community, there will be a proportionate increase in automobile emissions. While important locally, these emissions will be only a small fraction of the total Bay Area emissions which affect the East County area. The Board of Supervisors finds the majority of the air quality impacts affecting East County are derived from pollution sources outside of the area and beyond the control of that community. Further, that Federal and State regulations requiring more stringent air quality devices on automobiles will minimize the impacts of this plan to a large degree. CommunityFacilities: The East County area is experiencing strong pressures for growth and is planned substantial new development which may cause problems in the provision of the community facilities needed to support development. The ability of the school system to accommodate this growth will be strained over the life of the plan. Additional public controls on development are needed to ensure that adequate levels of sewer, water and transportation facilities are available to allow the growth in a manner consistent with the public health and welfare. The Board of Supervisors finds that the added clarification of service availability criteria in the plan will help ensure appropriate standards of public sewer and water service. Further, that the phasing of growth in the Oakley/Sandhill areas will assist in allowing development only in the proximity of existing community facilities, which will provide time to allow the development of additional facilities to accommodate new growth. Protection of Delta Resources: The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is a critical resource to the State as well as the County. Development in the Delta is affected by the fact that much of the land is flood prone and is located within the floodplain of a 100 year storm. The aquatic, marsh and riparian habitats of the Delta region are under increased pressure as nearby communities grow in size and as water-related recreation becomes more popular. Flood control improvements have removed much of the marshland and riparian vegetation, and the sloughs are disturbed by dredging. Unless protective measures are taken, the wildlife value and vegetative diversity of the Delta will continue to decline. The most serious long-term threat to the Delta is to the quality of the waters. The protection of this resource is critical to the Delta's long-range agricultural and recreation resources. The Board of Supervisors finds that an indirect impact of the General Plan will be increased use of Delta waterways. The distinction between increased use and over-use is a complex problem, which cannot be addressed adequately on a project-by-project basis, but rather must be dealt with in concert with other Delta counties. The plan does protect the Delta from residential development by raising the minimum parcel size from five (5) acres to twenty (20) acres and by establishing criteria for location and design of major water-oriented recreation facilities. However, in order to protect the Delta as a major agricultural and recreational resource, the efforts of the County Water Agency to maintain and improve Delta water quality must be successful. The Director of Planning is Hereby Directed to file with the County Clerk a Notice of Determination concerning this adoption and the related Environmental Impact Report. PASSED on April 4, 1978 unanimously by Supervisors present. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of CC: Director of Planning Supervisors Public Works Director affixed this 4thday of April 19 78 County Clerk *onda R. OLSSON, Clerk Deputy Clerk Amdahl 0000A 0 H-24 3/70 15m In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California March 28 " 19 Z,8,_ In the Matter of Proposed Amendment to the County General Plan for the East County Area. The Board on February 21, 1978 having referred to the County Planning Commission for review potential changes to the proposed amendment to the County General Plan for the East County Area; and The Board having received a March 22, 1978 memorandum from the Director of Planning transmitting the report and recom- mendations of the Planning Commission on said referral; and Supervisor E. H. Hasseltine having stated that upon reviewing the aforesaid report, several points needed further clarification and, therefore, having recommended that the matter be continued to April 4, 1978 at 9 a.m. ; IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendation of Supervisor Hasseltine is APPROVED. PASSED by the Board on March 28, 1978. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of CC: Director of Planning Supervisors Public Works Director affixed this28th day of March 1978 f-�- J. R. OLSSON, Clerk &,'e—By � Deputy Clerk Vera Nelson 00001i.0 H-24 4/77 15m RE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EE C E V,T V E DJ PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAR 1978 J. R. OLbV_)j. CLERK BOARD OF SUxQVIW)ja ONTR-A CQVA CC TO: Geraldine Russell DATE: March 22, Clerk of the Board FROM: Anthony A. Dehaesus SUBJECT: East County Area Director of Planning General Plan Attached please find a report to the Board of Supervisors pursuant to the Board referral of February 21 , 1978. Please put this item on the Board agenda for March 28, 1978. 1 sug- gest the following wording: REPORT of the Planning Commission regarding the East County Area General Plan. ACCEPT REPORT AND CONSIDER ACTION. * AAD/ral Attachment 0ow-o 0 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: March 22, 1978 FROM: Anthony A. Dehaesu SUBJECT: East County Area General Plan Director of Planni Referral of February 21 , 1978 The Planning Co ission considered the Board referral of nine items in the East County Area General Plan (see Board Order of February 21, 1978) at its Study Session of February 21, 1978, and again at its meetings of March 7 and 21 , 1978. The recommendations of the Planning Commission are detailed in the attached report to the Board of Supervisors. The Board may wish to adopt the Plan as originally recommended, may take any action on the items referred, or may hold the Plan for further Board consideration. AAD:sj Attachment RECEIVED MAR aA 1978 J. R. OLSSON CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TRA TA CO. B Deputy /6� Akicrofilmed with board ordw 0oow o • Report to the Board of Supervisors on the February 21, 1978 Referral to the County Planning Commission for the East County Area General Plan On December 6, 1977 and January 23, 1978, the Board of Supervisors held public hearings on the East County Area General Plan. On January 23, 1978 the Board closed the public hearing on the draft plan, and on February 21, 1978 the Board referred several items back to the Planning Commission for a report. The following is the report of the Planning Commission on this referral. 1. CRITERIA FOR SUBDIVISION TO BELOW 5 ACRES IN AREAS OF ESTABLISHED ONE ACRE PARCEL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AGRICULTURE RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY (Board Referral, Item fel). The Agriculture-Residential category is intended for those areas where soils are not prime, and where there may be a transition in use from agriculture to rural residential uses. Some areas within the Agriculture-Residential category have already been subdivided to below the 5 acre parcel minimum established by the draft plan. It was felt that some consideration should be given to allowing further subdivision of parcels below a 5 acre minimum in these areas where one acre lot development is already established and where good percolation and water supply exist. In many of these developed areas however, serious constraints exist for continued subdivision such as high groundwater table, presence of 100 year floodplain and soils with poor percolation. Given these constraints, the fragile nature of continuing agriculture in East County (especially in non prime areas), and the intended emphasis on agriculture of the Agriculture-Residential category, the Agricultural Viability Study is needed to determine if any areas are suitable for subdivision below the 5 acre minimum. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to consider minor subdivision to below the minimum parcel requirement at this time, the attached criteria should be adopted for consideration of minor subdivisions in hardship situations. These criteria should be applied until the Agricultural Viability Study is completed and, because of their specificity, adopted for internal use only and not as part of the Plan document (See attached). In addition the following text should be added to page 14 of the ,General Plan, at the end of the first paragraph under "Agriculture-Residential", to clarify use of these criteria: "In certain areas designated Agriculture-Residential, a pattern of one acre parcels has already been established. In these areas the Planning Commission may allow the division of land to the predominant parcel size under exceptional circumstances, subject to appropriate criteria to be adopted by the Planning Commission." RECOMMENDATION Make no change to the Draft Plan. In the Alternative, add the above text to Page 14 of the Draft Plan. _ 00001i0 �Jlicro�iime7 vAtFi S�G_ra or`�ir I CRITERIA FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION IN AREAS OF ONE ACRE DEVELOPMENT IN THE AGRICULTURE-RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION IN THE EAST COUNTY AREA GENERAL PLAN Minor subdivision applications will be considered subject to the following criteria and when the applicant can show that a hardship situation exists: I. The parcel is in an area where substantial subdivision to one acre lots has occurred and in which the Commission determines that there has been a transition from commercial agriculture uses to Agriculture-Residential and ranchette uses. 2. The minor subdivision will not adversely impact existing farming or ranching activity. 3. The parcel to be divided is less than 5 acres in size. 4. The parcel to be divided shall be bordered on at least two sides by parcels which have previously been subdivided to less than the 5 acre minimum. 5. The parcel is not located adjacent to a large agricultural parcel with which it could be farmed, and would not otherwise adversely affect agriculture in the area. 6. The parcel to be divided fronts on an existing public road. 7. The parcel is not located witin the 100 year flood plain as shown on the federal flood hazard boundary maps. 8. All applicable zoning, health and other codes, ordinances, regulations and standards will be complied with and the parcel is not in an area where the County Public Health Department has a history of septic tank failure. 9. The resulting parcels should be of a size which is not smaller than the average parcel size in the specific area in which it is located. 2 000040 2. MODIFICATION OF GLNERAL f LAN DESIGNATION FOR THE AREA BETWEEN NEROLY ROAD AND LIVE OAK AVENUE AND BETWEEN HIGHWAY 4 AND OAKLEY ROAD (Board Referral, Item 1l2). The draft General Plan shows the portion of Oakley between Neroly Road and Live Oak Avenue and between Highway 4 and Oakley Road as Single Family Residential High Density, and an area along the south side of Highway 4 is shown as Commercial. The existing zoning in this area is L-I, Light Industrial (see map 1). Two industrial uses are established in this area; one is the pallet company located on the south side of Highway 4, and the other is an auto wrecking yard established since before zoning went into effect on the. west side of Live Oak Avenue near Oakley Road. Single family residential uses are located on the east side of Neroly Road. The rest of the area is essentially agricultural. The pallet company is an agricultural service use and should be recognized in the General Plan as it is likely to remain for sometime. The auto wrecking yard on Live Oak Avenue, however, is located in an area which is appropriate for residential uses south of Highway 4. This portion of Highway 4 is essentially the westerly entrance to the town of Oakley and therefore development here should be subject to design review. The L-I, Light Industrial zoning district is suitable for this purpose as most uses are permitted through the land use permit process. Light industrial uses could also act as a buffer between the highway and future residential development to the south. Residential development exists to the south, and the area is presently served by the Oakley County Water District. General Plan policy over a 10 year period should consider the wrecking yard as a nonconforming use and discourage further industrial uses along Live Oak Avenue. Live Oak Avenue is a two lane road which will serve residential use in the future and which is inadequate to serve large truck traffic. RECOMMENDATION In view of the existing light industry site and zoning along Highway 4, the Commission feels that properties with Commercial designation should be changed to Light Industry as shown on Map 1. The remainder of the area should be retained in the Single Family Residential-High Density designation. 3. RETAIL BUSINESS ZONING BETWEEN SAND MOUND BLVD. AND BETHEL ISLAND (Board Referral, Item MP3). The existing border of Bethel Island Road between Sand Mound Boulevard and the Bethel Island Bridge is zoned Retail Business R-B. The draft General Plan shows this area as Agriculture Residential, except for that portion which borders Sand Mound Slough which is shown for Commercial. Enrico Cinquini requested that 13 acres of his property located at the northeast corner of Bethel Island Road and Sand Mound Slough, which are presently zoned Retail Business, be designated Commercial (see map 2). In the draft plan approved by the Planning Commission approximately 128 acres are shown for commercial uses in the Bethel Island and Sand Mound Slough area. The service area has an existing permanent population of 1,900 and a projected 1990 00M10 3 permanent population of 2,900 (seasonal population is much higher due to the area's character as a recreation community). Even with the large amount of commercial recreation uses on Bethe: Island, the 128 acre area established by the draft Plan for commercial uses is more than adequate to serve future retail and commercial needs of the Island. Changing that portion of the Cinquini property to reflect the existing R-B zoning. would tend to create a strip commercial effect and would extend commercial uses farther away from the residential and commercial centers of activity on the island. In view of the existing constrained circulation system on the island, it would be best to centralize commercial activity and not extend it south,of Sand Mound Slough to include the 13 acres of the Cinquini property zoned R-B. RECOMMENDATION Make no change in the draft Plan. 4. GARIN PROPERTY EAST OF BRENTWOOD (Board Referral, Item #4). Garin owns approximately 175 acres of agricultural land adjacent to and east of the city limits of Brentwood. This property is divided into four parcels, two which are each in excess of 80 acres in size, and two parcels of 5.1 acres and 6.6 acres respectively. These latter two parcels are remnants of a parcel ;which Garin conveyed to the Brentwood School District for the development of Edna Hill and Garin Elementary Schools. All of these parcels are located outside of the City's sphere of influence. Garin requested that his property be designated as follows, using the City of Brentwood General Plan land uses categories: a) Urban Services - comprised of approximately 75 acres adjacent to the city limits. b) Urban Support - comprised of approximately 50 acres, located east of the proposed for Urban Services. c) Agriculture Residential - comprised of approximately 25 acres, located east of and adjacent to that proposed for Urban Support. d) Agricultural Core - comprised of approximately 25 acres, located east of and adjacent to that proposed for Agriculture-Residential and fronting on the westerly side of Sellers Road. The land is comprised of prime agricultural soils and is farmed intensively. If the two large parcels remain in the Agricultural Core designation and the two small parcels adjacent to the school are designated for urban uses, the elementary school properties together with the two remnant parcels could provide a reasonable buffer between agricultural and other residential uses. To designate additional land further east for urban uses would simply bring incompatible urban uses further into the agricultural lands. If in the future this area is determined necessary for urban growth of the City of Brentwood, and the sphere of influence lines are altered by LAFCO, these areas can be annexed to the city and the County Plan would be superseded by the City Plan. 00001io 4 RECOMMENDATION Designate the two remnant parcels of 5.1 and 6.6 acres respectively, as Single Family ResiDential-High Density to be consistent with adjacent residential densities, and retain the remainder of the Garin property in Agricultural Core (see map 3). 5. REQUESTS FOR CHANGES IN THE BIG BREAK AREA (Board Referral, Items #5, 7, and 8). There have been four requests by property owners in the Big Break area for changes in the General Plan, as outlined below: a) The first is a request by Dal Porto to change 277 acres from Industrial and Agriculture-Residential designations to a designation which would be appropriate for recreational uses including a golf course, tennis courts and clubhouse. A land use permit is pending on an application for these uses on the Dal Porto property. Future uses could include a marina. b) The owners of Big Break marina requested that the existing recreational nature of their property be recognized in future planning and zoning decisions. Big Break Marina consists of 32 acres, 16 acres of which are water. The draft General Plan shows the land area for Agriculture-Residential uses. c) Miller, who owns 79 acres north of the railroad in Oakley, has requested an Industrial designation. d) Lauritzen, who owns 600 acres, the majority of which are submerged lands in Big Break, has requested that her property have a designation which would allow her to retain existing heavy industrial zoning. In addition to these requests, Staff has recommended that the shoreline area, which consists of marshland along Big Break, be designated as Agriculture-Recreation. The Big Break area, of which the above properties are a part, has been noted as having valuable recreactional potential; both the State Delta Master Recreation Plan (September 1976) and the Delta Advisory Planning Council (DAPC) Delta Action Plan recognize the aquatic and marshlands habitat of Big Break as a significant wildlife recreation resource. In addition much of the shoreline area is marshland with soils which have severe limitations for development. Most of this area also is within the 100 year flood plain. In view of the recreation and wildlife value of the area, flood hazard, and severe limitations for building on some soils, an Agriculture-Recreation designation would be the most appropriate for the Dal Porto and Big Break Marina properties, as well as the entire Big Break Shoreline extending from Bridgehead Road east to Jersey Island. It would reflect the marina uses which exist at Big Break now and would protect these flood prone areas from inappropriate densities by setting a 20 acre parcel minimum size. It would accommodate the proposed recreational uses on the Dal Porto property. OoWiQ 5 The Miller property consists of 80 acres and is shown in the draft General Plan as Agriculture-Residential. It is presently zoned H-1, Heavy Industry. The major portion of the Miller property is located within the 100 year floodplain, consists of soils with severe limitations to development, and also borders on marshland. For these reasons, the northerly portion of the site should be shown as Agriculture-Recreation. The southerly portion of the property borders the railroad and also borders some parcels which are designated as Industrial on the draft General Plan. The southerly portion of the property is appropriate for industrial uses, provided that soils are suitable for development. The Lauritzen property consists of more than 600 acres, the majority of which are submerged lands in Big Break. The land area, consisting of approximately 80 acres, is comprised essentially of marshland and soils with severe limitation to development. The existing zoning for the property is Heavy Industry, H-1. Approximately 10 acres are used for a heavy equipment yard, and a small warehouse and caretaker's mobile home exist by land use permit. The draft Plan approved by the Planning Commission shows the land area as Agriculture-Residential and the water area as "Nater". In view of the valuable wildlife habitat of the marshlands and the fact that soil conditions would pose severe constraints to future development, an" Agriculture- Recreation designation would be most appropriate. The existing equipment storage uses would continue to exist as a legal non-conforming use. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends to the Board of Supervisors the following changes in the General Plan as outlined on Map 4: a) Change the Dal Porto property from Agriculture-Residential and Industrial to Agriculture-Recreation. b) Change the land area of the Big Break Marina property from Agriculture-Residential to Agriculture-Recreation. c) Change the Miller property from Agriculture-Residential to Agriculture-Recreation and Industry. d) Change the land area of the Lauritzen property from Agriculture-Residential to Agriculture-Recreation. e) Change the remainder of the Big Break shoreline form Bridgehead Road to Jersey Island from Agriculture-Residential to Agriculture-Recreation. 6. BLUE GOOSE FARM LABOR CAMP (Board Referral, Item 1l6). The General Plan designation of the Blue Goose Camp south of Brentwood should be one which is consistent with the rehabilitation efforts which are underway. The Blue Goose Farm Labor Camp is located on Highway 4, south of the City of Brentwood. This facility, which has long provided housing for some 19 families, is proposed for rehabilitation through the use of Community Development funding. The camp is located within the area designated as Agricultural-Core on the draft General Plan. 0000,10 Provision for farm lalt housing is perinitted unc_r the Cienty Zoning Ordinance in Agriculture districts, and is therefore consistent with the Agricultural Core designation of the General Plan. Because of the extensive upgrading of the Blue Goose facilities, it would be desirable to include some reference specific to the Blue Goose in the General Plan text. RECOMMENDATION Retain the Agricultural-Core designation for the Blue Goose site, but add the following statement to the Plan text under the heading "Agricultural-Core" on page 13. "The Blue Goose Farm Labor Camp facility, located southerly of the City of Brentwood along Highway 4, provides much needed housing for farm workers and their families. Current efforts to upgrade and improve these facilities are deemed to be consistent with the provisions of this land use category." 7. EXPANSION OF THE BRENTWOOD AREA (Board Referral, Item #9). The City of Brentwood has repeatedly requested that the County General Plan show urban growth which would be reflective of the City's development goals. The Board referral to the Commission asks for the Commission's report on whether: A) The Brentwood urban area should be enlarged slightly to the east and south of the city limits; and B) Whether most of the area located northwest of the city and bounded by Highway 4, Lone Tree Way and the railroad tracks should be included in the City's urban area in the County General Plan. The referral does not suggest specific General Plan categories to be included. To clarify the two differing situations for this referral, each is addressed separately below: A) The areas south and east of the Brentwood city limits are outside the city's sphere of influence boundaries as adopted by LAFCO. The entire area is prime agricultural land (Class I and II soils) and is shown in the draft East County General Plan as Agricultural-Core, with a minimum parcel size of 10 acres. Much of this area contains larger parcel sizes than is typical of lands north and west of the city. The proposed General Plan for the City of Brentwood designates urban development for a considerable distance east and south from the city. Staff has defined the areas of this referral as the lands shown on map 5. If these lands were to be designated for development on the County Plan, the most appropriate designation would be Low-Density Single Family Residential. The draft Plan establishes a policy that in order for an area to develop the necessary urban facilities must be available to the site. In the Brentwood area, suburban development will have to annex to the city in order to receive public water and sewerage service. If the County General Plan was amended to allow for residential uses, pressure would build to subdivide lands on wells and septic tanks. This could work against the densities and planning goals found in the draft Brentwood General 7 0000,iU Plan. A designatioof Single Family Residential LeDensity based on the community facility criteria found in the County draft Plan, would allow subdivision into 5 acre parcels (even if designated Interim Agriculture); the City is calling for larger parcel sizes adjacent to the City limits. In short, inclusion of this area in the City's urban growth area could lead to further parcelization and further complications in implementing the city's General Plan in the future. To assist in planning for eventual urban services requirements, the City has prepared land use plans which extend beyond the present city limits and sphere of influence boundaries. When a case is made by the City to LAFCO to expand the City's sphere of influence, the land use recommendations of the County Plan should not present any physical restraints to such expansion by the City since 10 acre sized parcels can be adapted readily to more intense development patterns. Showing these areas for land usesother than Agricultural-Core could result in the premature conversion of agriculture land to rural residential uses, and could also have a negative taxation impact on adjoining agricultural lands. B) The area northwest of Brentwood's City limits is also comprised of prime agricultural lands (Class I and II soils). The boundaries of the area referred for report by the Commission include lands designated on the County draft plan for High-Density Single Family Residential, Agricultural Core, Agriculture Residential, Low-Density Single Family Residential, Interim Agriculture, and Commercial (as shown on map 6). The lands designated as Single Family Residential High-Density are lands within the adopted City sphere of influence, which could logically accommodate an extension of the city and its services. It was felt that the Marsh Creek channel formed a logical boundary for City expansion. There are, however, lands west of the channel which are already fragmented and on which continued agricultural land uses may not be viable. This is the most logical area for an enlargement of the "Planned Community" General Plan designation which allows urban uses. If any new area is to be designated for an urban use, "Single Family Residential Low-Density" would be the appropriate County land use category in this location. It should be pointed out that if 5 acre lot splits are allowed in this area, according to the County draft Plan community facility criteria, they could impede implementation of the city's General Plan by creating premature subdivision of lands without extension of city services and facilities. • The position most compatible with the City's future land use goals would be to make no changes to the draft Plan, i.e. encourage annexation to the city prior to ck- elopment. If any additional area is to be designated for suburban development, it should be the area just to the west of Marsh Creek channel as shown on map 6, due to the significant degree of subdivision which has already occurred there. RECOMMENDATION 1. Make no changes to the area south and east of Brentwood. 2. Make no changes to the area northwest of Brentwood. CCCPD 3/21/78 000040 8 I ;z --,— LISTING- PALLET ComPhtol �- A A � �/ • Im SANTA �Zlc MI> cvwc-L . . R uEsr�� llc�t �NausTQr4t. -�.,, !TATE m 4 •,;` -�'? i. ^r r-... I.i_ .r J.r",,T}n Emil WED ii � .�t-1.-1-.r .. . -} .-}-}- "tj - -'-i.- • mogTw 1 = Goo -- :: .. VS I GG 1 I B Volt EST EE I � �� u 1 T S i LAG IAT T NOua tAL _ X. I YM ��- T' M:YItYM i 1 X S i « r :: T VQ E AK _ �iwrr � i tNC:- E XX RD ck Am 0 W l T R t MUNG aNEW&L PLAN C4MMERCIAL Qud STAFF RECOMMENDED CUANC E y SINGLE TAMILY 141GH �c No. 9, x i c NpRTIA , .. "•: :.::- :: :#;.;. << Gov �; 17{yam ��• J>:,•l:iY:'.:/f.':�•':•i 1J:::. . �) y� ,� ;.,��,� � �4 �,• }� .i n`/.=.q . �, +553 S!/'Cti SCOUZH jr v •. •4. •� Y �r wr .. .............. TO.J tJtNt S2.EQ TtaH ,t GilrlQj,�GE -QESVC*!"�p' -�- G tit�E.St DE:NTt AL ' caro► ' '� '-- - {••�.n.4, -to COMM �"' � S�NpnraV R,.G ivo 3 t 554 t t t 1 i L t L_ 1 co L vigor 1 i• oQtn�,,, a ZC1AL {1,., -1549 AGr11� y 0000'-0 { .; 4L 2 _;.5413 _4- I � 91 ehlZIN FbAMS PROPERTY I ` '" xz• STAFF RECOMMENDED w , .7L ' ` �° Cu&NGE ROM AGRU CU LTURAL CORE TO SINGLE IFflMIL`l RESIDENTIAL-9IG4 DENSITY i 0 A2F 14 \ - - o- 3no' 100' �A 0000416 laf• 1.^,t•. '\�` cra,. ., Cn�c I�,— J�fitrtt Y..• l.ul `--- '� Mle►P NO. 3 � 1 �.- /'% ,,'�, y .. Jar,,•,---'" � :, E31ind Point,— " ointy — Uj �_ __t�TT1CilFt i.:tt]13111}( � ,,. •. -'`i' l; –"- ` � '�' a ./ v / o` ff• tom`,. ..,• . . •. r 11 Mum ti;�• fl t+t i,,' RECOMMENDED CHANGES' AT WATER %0hT ti't ',• ezlZ �I" �= { / � fel �, ' : v �'RIT�•t� � � • � -AURITZEN B h E A !1 Ac u.: 13 ! G i ¢r r a N f 11 `l • / �/ / • a 7• � f i BiG BREAK MARINA a:,', • i ci �. � , 't., t .� • f� :;y `� °r"�,.,v,.•:..ti �'rte^^:4 . V zx .. of'•:�I,. .. .t" /2 f RY s ; .: .,r ..a.�:,•T INDUST . - :;y,,; ., : R�'• '� i f .fi�lf rY� ? ::: <-•. ..... ... fjs• � .,, •-�.�� - `"�= ',�': MILLERS � / 1�� . �' .- ,Lev.` •� �• �r �� f . ..• � __._ � ^J aw A,Rf 4 f 4 4 4•. a' s 'I _ s 41 .. e i L ►: ; � IOENTIA �oRio ., G C TURF— RES PLANNED ``' � f:::::.:Y::. :::::.:.•.,:; t � X�Y :� i 7 ' � {t•i 7. COMMUNITY < zt .'.T�{�j.i' — ^ �a�7 ,:._` �:I L �� '�/+{jwjp'�f�'�1�• » ° ' r ., '?17 yid 1.:s. 19 20 .l 2044. AGuoir, Lin SEE CARRELS W.43 AC ;t u y j y•.°f ,.� + - _ x-. 36.6 AG - _ 374FER r t -. 1T ,�o v 2 40 AC „` =1 37 Sd I C We Zv �ay � f I�-1_ xN�E ewageD:,aosal OEVINE ASEti 8 x a w a 4 _ - tit u " �) n _-a _ ttt Pt* 20.08 AC >n W. - u W.% W.( M I m -«- F-u _AMPORT -�._j.:T• •fi r l• ARPENTER x { C a o N T r4 ! "` x u -Y - j- r 4 19 AC «S«•�.�?l i«lL, r- f --- _ - - 0 1 t� w Z� Wovm w4 ro WN I2 AG 7.32 AC Q N E. WT ,•7� - EZn E - Nn�'i w^ a'^ N4 d^i W'o BURNESS - H ' 7.15 M, w¢K NU't1Y i OO:'m oa 4, CECCHINI _ ¢ri I B AC ul ,� y�o I a n/ o 0 "+••� -. °' -. ;'i zo �' 7.09 AC '4n .t 44.59 AC 26 43 AC Wm -o ; 54 J! AC 93.79 AC ^NARO':CCI f �O '1 tem co- v 6I2AC; SUhSE•' ,.r OKktVMti k, _. - 9 -- _:. ..z __ ^'•�".`_'• .. 1.,-' u W 6.03 AC 8.1 n _ C_ I AC o ! Q aw I DE MARTIM - T' MARTIN '=1 nx LAIRD 0 PEDERSON 1 �, W S t3 S FARMS INC 10 AC 15,26 AC ,o V mA ',C3 L Jn 'T o 4 z`� \12.65 AG ----_....__-«-.J., 25,118 AC 61.99 AG v m _ t '32 60 AC 36.51 AC LAMOHE NUNN .1 r -....�k "v +n ,. ,L. _-- -_.-1 79,49 AC Z •Z q �a z� MARTIN 16.82 AG a•^ cc 9d3AG , A!4l-1COj l7 m 4 t � KA2ARIAN _ a 1 ,. _ _ w i t 21.60 AC = 1Ut a LAIRQ CARLISLE u -•. - -.__. ( 25.25 AG o i.__..._ -__._ 4 59 AC lMAGGIORA j 9 AC 9.62 AC t d8.TO AC 35.91 AC �M x a I ` MART: O� LOON3 AC ,t� W - TURLEY 1 O n _ _ _ _ _ _ 0 26,25 AC / i T1TUE INS TRUST CO 4LJ111!(f Hr uj t ¢o u l0 r r u 1 - SCIORTtNO u' 37 AC •�f ..`.`' �p7 m p't -� '+w► - f. ROCCO 1 66.94 AC �LA7 } i,tit�Y ' m �r oZ 2 CCAR Isl(A�C/r��li Z� �- I 17.17 AC' 28.99 AC z pff. 'ANDRADE C ` - 4 \ ¢n TACNELLA 7 1T 28 AC rn CASTELLO .._ y - - -- BOLING -57.55 AC ��. y - .._ 3519 AC o� 23 A , �.GREGORY z 1O - u^+ DERSEN I 28.78 AC yy iII N 25 is T. ^ 12.86 AG ! 20 25 AG 14 ,T AG 38.57 AC ttlmr 0 H 111I A xAQ J -SON GASNER tP ! � "1 14 S 19.71 AG O-_ MANGINI 29 49 AC a S i y a NUNN I1 LA:RO RIOFLL152.35 AG I _ % ' s r. .% . �•�.� 81EDERMANN £T AL � •.� cn +* DICKSON 46.25 %C r - GERRY 4FtGORY i v m 52.11 AC - a < -- 49.56 AC C 23 96 AC,__ S8 91 AG MARTINU f k' y Edi 4 > - - SAN JOSE Ayr P - 16 17 AGpN F ._ m _ _ __DONNICKSON _ ZOODSMA 15.33 AG GANG- ANORADE -_ -•--'._._ `_` _... __. - ' - _., -u 46 tO AC - 1 'l4.17t }. PETERSON IWddO WER (/? r GASNER 25.20 AC S' BUTGH�R FER b O ' sir, ;30 25 AG 13.05AC15.15 25,38 AC i �AKATA C 4 14 r "a RI x NUNN Ss.,tir r 22.20 ac PANCHES, INC i •}•irt ty4F I,G 2 20.21 ACI20,24A 4G AG _ u BLOOMFIELD 50.25 AC 66 38 AC' GRIE�lTH �P +� a o 4 n Z�, 40.45 AG z r. i. r rt z W v UUA - �CL E 9 74.40 AC 8 #G. _ - f�} j 41.10 AC in Z n ` ''u ; AF RT, W� f Ll. vo t t, O AC u y 1 _-.--... - 6 BRkN 1tr,.1ii L1 1 33.86 A G 35.20 AC EPPLE 868 AC 's - BTBTIt�V OOC� I+Iu 4.26AC JENSON E08#A HILL GHIGGERI ¢4 BRENTW D ORCHARD I a �.. s GARIN ET AL 38.29 AG OwELLEY CMOOL Q 49.05 AC u --- 19.61 AG 7 79fii4 8 AC Pf PPQ k k 83.p3 AC 7 1 11- T•GO AC bs i6 AC i N 17.89 AZT• 80.36 AC /� a RMST OtX I 521115. AC =4 a a. Pump ,°f v r WM AN RSdf }OA4 +-*� i a 4 GARIN E7 ALuj 4 ,R CO a E RRO m Y• 4. <.. SOITE i zmi 5 51 a 93.41 AC 49.05 AC 4 ti 4012 AC r.. �. ,;a Frac- ' Pump '.4 8ALFOUK I U U n RO _ ', ,.. T.... ._ f 32.61 C n AGf ORE 1 G0 NE EIR WINGER TET AL zu 4 fume V'''e1 40 39 4 AC + 3T 8 .: M1 .8 a� 111.# aG �� GERRY u 4 > V TITLE INSURANCE TR S7 ry � I j NK 0 A O -oz 24• AC 1 T 1 9 T CO t 8 69/AC i 1. AC 1•,. O I W x< O 57.68 AC 127.06 AC __ f�- ' -E __ 4 ,AGHIGG 0.44 23.54 AC m y 12.31 AG 1 JI NUNN SCIOR71NO WEIR `! u Q n cr.I- 23.38 t... s,_�- \-- Y .' a¢ 33 AC ? 70.29 AC 4.79 AG -MANZO $f '- 0 PG X44 44 AC� Q 1....11_. Pini r Sta CANAL ` N t 18.53 AG «M^amoing$ 2 r_ Pining MARTIN (_ l GRFENLAW �Ua VAGMORF MAGGIORE NOPRIS �4 Sta 15.35 ACS NUNN Ir, GIANNfNi ;��'j r 99 AC s r--- : 22 T G MORI N --. u. u - -�� 33.66 AC -� w 1k - 2- AC �-P fit"\• u 4 V�� _ �� -Rig �►�� -{ w ^ a,n w R u Z J' w e 4a PREWEtT ii;. 7 AC l F�Trs+ C �+ u za o �� N 4 BLUF.MEN _ u tl 76 AG a 22/Qj 50�A,G --_�T�1 { a ._,..1.� _ f t " sU KNIGH TSEN t} AS50(''ING SLA �« n 'r•� - 9�,, \ LONt01��M R7T ��Itt '• = By 8! 4G 16.83 AG _� t. N i Jm (4 1 d I.. .1 11- __ �10.20AC`'_ 7. ACI AC 11 i} it cc .y COroE ' � ..- r AE NIG N G � z� � ' CRAFFEY j3 N,� LEE CARRELS 16 43 AC SHAi£R 4 AC f 36.5 AG 40 AC ". ' aNy i ',e.saFe2sn�4ai OEYINE 37 50 AG i I CASEY B Vt�� w ' Q A O r �P'l _ - A__ _ .------- iII % GOB C CARP£NTE . ons �. 1� N t Wa t - uQ i - t A A C ct •r (- .jam J •I � ' - ab -m ♦ a r, A N S - v.•�r .j NU�NN a� wu u l IN Ei Ji EZ a' E inN I w ( - «n �• C ry w �• �a � ao IN oaQ �q i CECCHi Ni a w f;an. ;f 40.59 AC 26.43 AC' wm -0 54 31 AC • m n 93,79 ACyr x; } - •• _ 1 fr:SE t �• t x '' _ tad - 1Uf t1C'•�L• $. • .• •• r R• �� ;i �{ � 15.0 n p ••. •7"•• *•+ LAIRO AG PFOERSON I a a DE MAN1iM g FA M5 C " �•i;•��♦ .2 A I , Qy � ¢ `j f2,G5 tf •�• •"".•ti« �; 25.38 AC 61 99 w -a _�@ �� E Y a W F- 6 AC 36 A •t __ ___ '� NUNN ,a _ iaa' i _m y t .t ,•.�'.• .-- '-� tt 7949 AC Arjr,•rt'n i�� un z awl MARTIN .:f ["'• • •• +�. ,� KAZARIAN h r_ - !��( � �u , .� 75.64 AG '! i �•� •'••e•+ .�. " 903 AC 21.60 AG I = R I{ NUNN R LA-RU r M { j 1 CARLISLE t �. _._._ 25. S .��•.� •.�•••• •`�,•.• 40 59 AC (l MAGGIOHA Q 1 3 AC 17,6 AG ii 1 1 38.70 AC 35.97 AC 4 T.m u i LDONE Y 1t bt ! . �* - ..--- - z u •• j,K �.ijrylF�i•� TITL- INS 8 TRUST CO MAORT�INO 20 fi3 AG wM v ma 1 ••j �• , •R•• , S O T 1N0 t 37 IO AC aK r BBUTCHER , Z^ y ;•. ;+ ."S• ;Y �ROCCO 66.94 AC 1W� a r 10.54 AG y+� - {• 7• 28.99 AC • !� _ �u •""" ,�� X a wa DENHOY CARLISLE �Ib �j • f. •". •• ._ "? w n 37 28 AC lit i .ANDRADE CASTELLO I) A aM ' 29 AC '• .•• '•' GREGORY O- 37 55 AC *t, v �l�,iK. "N PO 255AG + • ti 28 78 AC sa^ za m x DOLING •• ! • ••�.- ♦ x �. ,Ac j, is 37 AG k _ 38.57 ac 1 d r1 19.71 Ac ., � GASNFN t8 S� At, 14 54 AG i � •� � i t-. JOHNSON .__...-.._-.�. _-- -.. .. r -o MANGINI 29.49 A 4 x - `6 Ya a -_-.•FAJ46 !i LAIRD •« RIUELL 152 35 AC ' 146 � l BIEDERMANN ET AL ,.-_.-.____ 30, DICKSON 46.25 AC }' rr - 4Mt.,ORY l -,r k_ 3`y =a `° I� 52.11 AC - -- £RRY 23 96 58.91 AC l o n '+ 9 56 AG C A i ,'`t` �� N N G MIA ' i k Gy' - 16 17 At, (a _ ON iCKSO - A,r r1t+t1!. AVE 11. q t3 _ N N :.-. ._ ZOOOSMA 15.33 AG .Y ._ - 6'1� u 1146 10 AC GANG.[ ANDRADE __ _[ - yu i s a j PETERSON WOOD WER I N 30 25 AC i 130541315 25.38 AC GASNER 25.20 AC rr 22,20 AC a FERRO . . SAKATA f �.---_ -._--_ ._ RANCHES, 1t1C C (' �� - __ `.� OP ` G S2.1 ^ QUNN u BLOOMF!£LO 50.29 AC 66 Be AC t ---GRIFFITH 1 p�P�Ly p x u�� a 120.21 AG1I20.24 A 6 AC a {•- - 11.57 AC 6�. �> - Uaioti !L__ L ►t CECCHINI J 74.40 AG O z++In 40 45 AG . ' `!`( 4S 79 AC 41.10 AC =n r c : AFORr'. r • Q ��N z 1G q AC " + u Rkt r,r1 hi «'33JAC 35.20 AC iBACBrentwoodRtG£PPCF L3lV �` s> � > �4{ G' szHILL 0 ORCHARD . . 6-AC JE GARIN ETAL 38.29 AC DWELLEY taFt PtPPOx �� 4 � CHOOL 83.03 AC4 49.05 ACa�t9.61 AC 7 79 {:. 8 AC i6 AC £t" T 1 9 T'•CO AC_ :1 k N 1 ,. 17.89 AIS, 80.36 AC u Qtr �u ARMSTRONG. 11.525.94 AC as T a , } ' -; a r / J Q �._._� 2-. N f .>. , ,%.; GAR 1 N ET AL i w w,n ANDERSONIgA ria > IrRONCONI 13 FERRO jm ` 95.41 AC SOITE a°Js 1 / a N v 1.111. -_-__ w N ';,,'^.:, 52.St AG a y •rj¢. 4 9.05 AC J ri FERNANDEZ j0 1 �i �N N t 4012 AC u 20.63 AC �N i# Pump 1• 1 ©ALFOUR ! a " ..r i Q a" :► .WINGER 7 AL u, \ 32.6t AC ( �+ v MAGGIORE CONENT fiNWEIR d t 3t.!• AC aj GERRY r 'fume 1 Q,CIf 39 is AC 37 88 AC AC 53.8 0' 24 u J VIII TITLE INSURANC 9TRUST CO a„,--�" ry �BANK Of AM it_gSpC � .a OtD� 't y"iju i ♦ 3 T 0 .. �' ,18 69 AC - , , r •! - _ #or.fast Loon ty .: � ►. f ',,,..�A ,Bigger B_re'ntvwiC J^her lw n"]Boreal - minimum pMri'ctla *,--14nd ARTfNEZ—The city a(Brentw•ood should be permit- +t*to expaintostrmt pr3aoe agricultural territory,the -- M dd M y u� ` of SWnUars has 3VeeOL IAt Clan y 4 4 . and other recommcwktl xss for revisiowis to the wale it trawt JEast County Goeneral Plan were approved TUt, Pei Part G esst-` by the ;uperrbm "wW.9 two public hearings ie I4iM klliil� N,a odd January.ptocomes wits,now be submitted to thePGanaiag Commissim for further reWew. err+!! kms- q d retomtrten3atim, however, d6w`t .tion Alii MM ii ir1 X14 cify.the amount of territory that that city would be as all, siilip�lt.l ttyl.p�a f�Mt�tjt>valil�l ii1�F ptrtnitfed to develop, tial to --It just says it s wuld be"very slightly increased to the — tett'wYeh �+ reaic Zeast gad to the suuch."This area had been designated in betwewi 7t oe ani Pio s the draft pian as prime agricultural land that could bee ted tlds area as Agricuttvrj& divided only into 14-acre minimum parcels. �1. 'The board has also called for expanding Brentwood on —Reflect tiro c>ci eomanw-riasass.F lin t the north and gest bounded byHighway 4, Looe Tree island Raaf a�a a�'i.>detb�l 'Way and the railroad tracks. U12nd, 17 Another revision calls for allowing one-acre parcels to ... �� tMi F areas-without water or sewer hookups If they contain a raMt- ,good water supply,good soil absorption,and poor agricul- eat aural productivity.These areas must also have an already `et-stabli pauern of quo-acre bLs The draft pian only five-acre . i a In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California February 21 19 78 In the Matter of The proposed East County Area General Plan, an Amendment to the General Plan for Contra Costa County. The Board on January 23, 1978 having closed the hearing on the proposed amendment to the County General Plan for the East County Area, and requested Supervisor Eric H. Hasseltine to analyze the testimony pre- sented at the December 6, 1977 and January 3, 1978 hearings and make a recommendation thereon to the Board; and Supervisor Hasseltine having recommended that the following potential changes to the proposed amendment be submitted to the Planning Commission for its review and report to the Board: 1. In the areas in which there is an established pattern of one acre lots, some accommodations should be made for subsequent subdivision to this level even without water or sewer. In those areas in which there exists good percolation, good water supply and poor agricultural productivity, consideration should be given to subdivision of less than five acres. Sub- divisions pursuant to this change should be subject to special criteria to be adopted by the Planning Commission. 2. In the area between Neroly and Live Oak and between Highway 4 and Oakley Road, some existing zoning and development are in- consistent with the proposed General Plan. The General Plan should be modified as shown on Exhibit:::I,=and zoning should .be modified subsequent to adoption of the General Plan. 3. Along Bethel Island Road between Sandmound and the bridge to Bethel Island, the existing commercial zoning should be reflec- ted in the General Plan. 4. The Garin Property east of Edna Hills School should at least partially accommodate non-agricultural uses. At the very least, the "notches" in the existing boundaries should be removed and allowed to go into other uses. S. The Dal Porto property in Oakley should be changed from Industry and Agriculture-Residential to Agriculture-Recrea- tion. The Big Break Marina property should change from Agriculture-Residential to Agriculture-Recreation. All shore line marsh land areas should be changed to Agriculture- Recreation. 6. The General Plan designation of the Blue Goose Camp south of Brentwood should be one which is consistent with the ongoing rehabilitation efforts which are underway. 7. The Miller property should be reviewedtodetermine%.the- appropriate land use. 000040 8. The Lauritzen property should be reviewed to;det;ermine,tthe-,. appropriate land use. 9. The extension of the urban area from Brentwood should be very slightly increased to the east and to the south and could take in most of the area bounded by Highway 4, Lone Tree Way and the railroad tracks in addition to the areas already shown. The Board having discussed the recommendations, IT IS ORDERED that the aforesaid recommendation is APPROVED and the potential changes specified are referred to the Planning Commission for review and report to the Board. PASSED by the Board on February 21, 1978. 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct. copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Orig: Planning Dept. yyftess my hand and the Seal of the Board of cc: Supervisor Hasseltine Supervisors Planning Commissioner offixed this 21St�day of February _ i978 Director of Planning "— Public Works Director r--� �OLSSON, Clerk Deputy Clerk Ronda Amdahl 000040 H-24 3/76 15m o - � a 5 k `- SANTA FE I WAY co P1N,V _ WAP � „r.•:t'tEa w SANS -.--"�� ,aa Z l\ + > It f> > O p p E \/ state �, - i,^w it f w Jw Lr a ° L J a P►FGSSp�(is u, 't%�• , � �i tl >r �r�>�a "Jw J�tw rhw+ +'y +y Jr ter,�(+" P�, a a' ✓� `\\`: � 11 11 •,U>I f, ,r r V i < V J , ( +> , V L wJ Y, > , r ' - f1AV` r \\- �ti�,., . f rww<,y<�yfY t)f i, >> >� ^<Jtw+ J�>+'tr ^ r >y(Y`>yt ,•f>• Vl>+rn(fy f w v, i ��, ... •• • ,y t r r A, , r > , , y i i t 11 'I t •>t >I Y f,y +<t 1) >J 1 L it 4 f ,w4 v w )v V J >f h'i+ J w V h t T>A<r< -4 �i 11 L t L Afi >' > tY ^) ••yf )AL + ( Y Y+^f > � J ^`^�� 1 I .>• ..�� + w J y V v,+,v , r ,r Y J L r<+t+w> w< + w" t t �� ' J .1 L J,Y " y >> J V a v , f '•) w+ , a A t +,L< Y f' Y r Y i r \.,` '1 ; ••e� ` w VJw 4f>1" "tY Jy vy w+t+w f .� < ,,f) ) f, w,rf f 'w ><•4 i g>• '�'W .•i.•Y ,< y t J , r V "Y<Y L +Y)a Y 1 t V r<yYr 4 f a t )) V > < t \t\ t�t l�If • i >Y r w w�W w w.! l w w • < >i , w Y J r aiw A> A Y, `•w Y t,fa 4 A ' <V, .� �� .'- . t,\ �Si�� •�• Yy J,w,i'i <,n t ,< Y, y w>Y�JYf t , fa,w J+twayAr Yw fVYw<>rL ,", w � ////�'.'.,�/��' Ot O r,,>r A V<,fL'YT"< > ) w vrL t,i f+ tt' yr�aL t" t ywq �� Y! t , > , i f" Y w >A f r , f a y V ) a t i i O � Y11 ••tc .♦ > Y Y,YrfyVylyiw "VJ t+ V^ ) w ,+< ( aw< v < ^f"<+f r,<, , `� ^(i l •.» �- +h, )r( A > l a l r <y A r<r,T i t r r<w Lf ar a V f V ice) w + r i V+ W11 h>'t4 rry,V k rVITV 7( v +At<L aw J(t tr>w�,+v,t+rY<< ^YAt >,.,< T1 A fy1� M4'It<( �1 1 V ) w V w< f<^> of 4AV < >Y r<'AVJ L rtf>hA>f(f wt•,••y V .�,> A+yrJV� of - �� 11 t , w Y w > w < < > <w'L > 't ♦ > i V>Yr•'<f i ,•t A a>" ,V Y , '' \ Yr,r'<<V >t V >rV < ,•^ fL < <> .>( V +A;w,, ,V>wf i >. >,w ♦" r < `• <<tf Lr +r<VA+ V< •' >1 Jt>a rw YV,JY,VL+>V ,Ya''(`Y )L�' w+y>r A� 1 >• *>. 411 VwY ,>ivtw `It >!�<+ rVr(t,rYY"<Y>wr Y.lAir > tYAttV rJ1'. rJn<> < Y < �'�� w V>V�L> , r J t', L•<.• L<41 i a y w y J,>Y 7 r w ,,V A"a y w \ �� ` 1 1 > >w tJ< >• 11Y LwVr•' >i rlv<,fVf>Ja+Vt �� i •1 t � 11 �� it t N -- , 11 fl 11 . Va sl it Twcw> mar 1. 1 ii i, fhp County Clerk Board of Supervise# 3 Contra • James Clerk and Ex Officio Clerk of the Board CoUnl,� A hninistration Buildin( Costa Mrs.Geraldine Russell P 0. Box 911 Chtel Clerk 'Aartinez,California 94553 County (415)372-2371 James P.Kenny-Richmond Ist District Nancy C.Fanden-Martinez 2nd District Robert I.Schroder-Lafayette 3rd District r j 7 Warren N.Boggess-Concord I� L1—r 4tn District 11__JJ J 11 V Eric H.Hasseltine-Pittsburg 5th District P1�*� February 21, 1978 FEB 121 IQJ78 REPORT CL BO OF _'U?:RV RS QCs OFB ... . ........................... epury L.SUPERVISOR EIASSELTINE ON EAST COUNTY AREA GENERAL PLAN ITEMS TO BE REFERRED TO COUNTY PLANNING CONSIISSION Supervisor Hasseltine has reviewed the testimony received at the hearings before the Board, and has discussed the matter further with various parties involved and the Director of Planning. Based upon this additional information, Supervisor Hasseltine recommends that the following potential changes in the proposed General Plan be referred to the County Planning Commission for review and a report to the Board: 1 . In the arc--1s in which there is an estahl ishcd patterli of one .acre lots, sonic accommodations should be made for subsequent Subdivision to this level even without water or sewer. In those areas in wlii.ch there exists good percolation, good water supply and floor agricultural productivity, consideration should he -liven to subdivision of less than five acres. Sub- divisions pursuant to this ChZulC should be subject to special criteria to be adopted by the Planning Commission. 2. 111 the arca bctwecn Kcrohr and Live Oak and between Highway 4 :and O:li:lc�' P.oid, some cxist:ing zoning and development arc in- consistent witli the proposed General Plan. The Gencral Plan should he modified as shown on Exhibit 1, and zoning should be modified subsequent to ,adoption of the General Plan. 3. Along Bethel Island itoad between Sandmound and the bridge to Bethel Island, the existing commercial zoning should be reflec- ted ill the Genet-:ll 11:111. •1. The ( :trip lli-ol,(,rty c:lst of Edna Hills School should at least partially acconunodate non-agricultural uses. At the very least, the "notches" ill the existing boundaries shotild be rcnlux•ccl :ultl :lllot�od to "o into other lists. ';. 'fl:e ),ll !'onto l>roprrt� i- Oakley should Ilv ctianl;cd froal lndti-:try anal :lgricultl:r: -Residential to Ail-iculture-Itecl ) 0040 t l oil. I ail` Big Break M;i ri na property should change From AgH1,, :iItit re-R;tiident ial to Agriculture-Recreation. :11.1 show line nlarsil land areas should be cli: tiged to Agricul ture- Rec l'e:l t i oil. East County Arca Generalui _- wary 21 , 1973 b. 1'hc (:cncr:�1 1'I an deS i gnat i oil OI` the 11111C (;( SC Camp south of I)1'elltWOOd should be 011e which is consistent with the ongoing rehabilitation efforts which are und-e'r-i.ay-..xtt ' 7. The Miller property should be en Ai S. The Lauritzen property Should be si `f i. ttittt e -"e-tca- 9. The extension of the urban area from Brentwood should be very slightly increased to the east and to the south and could take in most of the area bounded by Highway 4, Lone 'free Way and the railroad tracks in addition to the areas already shown. Eric H. Hasseltine Supervisor, District V 000040 i f LECE'VE.DF 8 1978�. R. OL%SON K BOARD OF SUFERV,SORS C A CO. r � FOR- FOUR !it-*T Rl..';l;AT!0 N 00004.0 ECEIVED January 25, 197$ FEg � 1978 !. R. OLSSON �" BOARD OF SU�V15ORS James P. Kenny �d RA Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County Martinez, California Dear Mr. Kenny, I took great exception to your disrespectful behavior at the Board of Supervisors meeting of January 23, 1978. I feel that your lack of attention to the proceedings was made obvious by your responses and that your manner of response left much to be desired of a man sitting in your position. After my husband, Charles Pringle, had made his presentation advo- cating the use in the East County of poor agricultural land (Class 3 and L; soils) for development into the highly, public-demanded, small acreage parcels, you raised your voice, shook your finger and vehemently reprimanded him publicly for advocating that prime agricultural land (Class 1 and 2 soils) be used for development into small acreage parcels. our daughter, only minutes before, had asked me who was snoring into their microphone. Perhaps it was you, Mr. Kenny. Having misconstrued the basic point of his entire presentation, you continued to blast him saying that he was a developer and speaking only as a developer; that he was not speaking for the farmer who would be directly affected by his proposals. You completely disregarded the possibility that my husband might be something other than just a deveio- ozr. Both my family as well as the family of my husband are and have been taxpayers and residents of the East County for four generations: It was clearly evident that you had prejudged, condemning in advance, anything he might have said and you had not bothered to listen.. The entire Board of Supervisors, all of whom were present, then erupted into laughter as if you had just told the prize joke at the office party - all of this at the expense of the feelings of .my husband, our children who were also present, and myself. Mr. Garin, one of the most prominent farmer's in the East County far nearly fifty years, then stood and told you, AS A FARMER, many of the same things that my husband had said just prior to him, in fact, repeating several of the very same words and phrases that we had all just heard my husband speak. It seeris strange to me, Mr. Kenny, that your finger did not raise to him, nor your voice, nor did I hear any ridiculing laughter from you or the remainder of the Board at the end of his presentation. 000010 •'r • Page 2 I was distressed to see that transcripts of the proceedings were not being taken in order that I could thereby substantiate what I am saying, however I hope that you are a big enough man to admit the truth to at least yourself. I admire and stand by my husband in his presentations. He may not ,be the most polished speaker; he is no politician.; he does not add "just a Tot of fluff" to his presentations as Mr. Garin referred to that sort of thing; but he plain-speakingly stands up and speaks out, after careful consideration, for what he thinks is right and does not give into the pressures, intimidations, and coercion of those who sit on pedastals. To me, that is the highest grade of integrity. I am sorrowful and perhaps somewhat fearful to see that so few people possess that important quality of good character. I would appreciate your response. Si erely, ith M. Pringle P.o. Box 558 Brentwood, California 94513 00001iU t In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California January 23 ' 19 2& In the Matter of Hearing on Proposed Amendment to the County General Plan for the East County Area. The Board on December 13 , 1977 having continued to this date the hearing on the Planning Commission recommendation with respect to a proposed amendment to the County General Plan for the East County area; and The Board having heretofore received a January 18, 1978 memorandum from Mr. A. A. Dehaesus, Director of Planning, transmitting a staff report and recommendations related to testimony received at the public hearing held December 6, 1977 , and advising that the City of Brentwood General Plan proposals would be presented in detail by the City at the January 23 Board meeting; and Mr. James M. Buell, Brentwood City Manager, having stated that the City of Brentwood 's new General Plan is undergoing public hearings, and that the two plans have evolved in conflict with one another, that the East County General Plan provides for only limited expansion for the .City of Brentwood while allowing consid- erable expansion and growth in the Oakley area that the City of Brentwood is the only incorporated city in East County and believes that urbanization should occur in areas where full urban-type services are available, and that the entire drainage shed which has natural gravity drainage toward Brentwood (some 29 square miles) should be included in the Citv of Brentwoods Sphere of Influence, and having expressed the opinion that the County and City General Plans should be mutually supportive and in harmony; and The following persons having commented on the January 18 staff report: Mr. Charles M. Wofford; ?qtr. Henry Hampton; Mr. William N. Craig, Jr. ; Mr. Larry Orman; Mr. Richard Wall; Mr. William Garin; Mr. Gordon Chong, land planner and architect; Mr. Jack Hernandez; and The following persons having commented on the proposal: mr. Abraham 0. Pmador, representing United Council of Spanish Speaking Organizations, Inc. ; Mr. Charles Pringle, P.O. Box 658, Brentwood; 000(),8) Mr. Davis F. Biggs , representing Argonaut Manufacturing Inc. ; Mr. Richard Rockwell, representing Dynamic Pallet Corp. and Canada Pump Sales & Service; Mr. Enrico E. Cinauini, representing Mr. Milton Johnstone; and Supervisor W. N. Boggess having suggested that Supervisor E. H. Hasseltine meet with the citizens to review their requests and submit his recommendations thereon to the Board within a reason- able period of time; and Supervisor R. I. Schroder having suggested that the Board members make a field trip to view certain areas of concern; and Supervisor Hasseltine having concurred with the aforesaid recommendations; IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing on the proposed General Plan amendment is CLOSED and decision thereon is deferred pending a report from Supervisor Hasseltine on those items that should be referred to the County Planning Commission for review and report. PASSED by the Board on January23, 1978. 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my nand and the Seal of the Board of cc: Director of Plannina Supervisors _, y affixed this 23rd day of January 19 78 J. R. OLSSON, Clerk Bf:h k�� , Deputy Clerk ,Jamie L. Jolinson 0000;'9 00;'9 t 1� • CONTRA cos rA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: Board o' Supervisors DATE: January 18, 1978 FROM: -"inthony A. Dehaesu �i� SUBJECT: Responses to Testimony at Director of Planni ; East County General Plan i Hearing of January 3, 1978 Enclos.:v please find-aAstaff report which sU air es and nalyzes testimnny received at the public tearing of 339wY, Staff recommendations relative to each item are also provided. The General Plan reques-: of the City of Brentwood is not discussed in the staff report, even though a brief r:!-•:sentation was given by Mr. But ' 1 on behalf of the: City, since it was indicated that a complete presentation of the BrenEwood General Plan proposals; and the request of the city relating thereto, would be provided at the hearing of Januar;• 23, 1978. To assist in Board consideration of the Brentwood : !-npos::rs, a Fact Sheet summary is also attached to chis memorandum. to •thc event that the Board wishes to consic;er changes From the ;acorrwadation of the Planning Commission, following the January 23, 1978 `caring, we request that the Board identify thesa potential changes and refer them to the Planning Cc-:un i ss i on for a report pursuant to State aw. After receillL of a report from the Planning Commission, the Board would then be in a positron to certify the Environmental Impact Report a!-;a mace a decision on the ar,:endment. AAD/cavi 1°i$ J. L OLSSON BOARD of A�SORs 000040 Microfilmed with board ordet , MA RiR tt::4t;11 I..s�li f)i C1 L;, t1I' Iilt f t ..t =acl .11ltl y Y 1`11e ptuTiose .01 this fact sll4et .rs to laresent a et,:iii n xsan q�-t11e nla�oL featuresY"3'' t> " of,.:t11e "City of i�'reiiti:au alid Colltra Cas to County General P1,u15 TI1xs factualF 1* F .47 i caiipal.3son is presentee in the attached table. Llai,=cvci-, xt slZoulcl be iotcd that an mu1v 'z espects a direct clllC] concise co!ltllarSan could not tie made be s ; i cause of the different approaches_taken` Uy the two:,plans r f . The Last" Count} Plan�encollpasSes a, 184 square ,n-1e area ]n the East County/De1ta � r, re iori_of Contra Costa County. Brent' od is`the Only incorporated c]ty 1�]tii]Yt tlic Last County plannin- area. The City of Brentwood.Pian enconi lasses lni7 e. area "which ea-teil�ls primarily to the north incl ti��est of the , 6sent Brent vood city `lill]ts �lpprolilr<ztcl}l 5.2 square miles of:the Iiicntc=oad piaul]ng,area } i x extends" ct, tlle'.lvestex7z Uoirlcl�ix�* of the Last"County'_JlIbAdiii ixxca dict tllcre Cor ca F i5 not uirluciccl;i!1 the 1:,lst CoLL*rty Plalt. This"arC.r 1S:Cal'e1CCl by tllC County'S Oj)Gll K. St��ice Pian;• aiioi)ted in a,37�. In this analysis,. tlic arca for-"lhtcli colnpar]sons are , nlacle".is ,tlie, 29 sclivate la.ile I clrttvood pl unrilig area ilius the County-,document �tithxch'{ is used ;:]�r.the comparison. is primarily the East..County=�trea 'Gcneial an,,,,,--,al'thougn� M Lor a parte of the.area �lle �pr1i Space conservation elemcnt 1S used atz= 9 fhe Last Coulrty a:1cl City of 13rentwocd flantake nurledty d]fFerent appa-oaches>tow K land use planning., The 'Eastr County Plan, designates specifzcr types and zntensit]es Of use (eg " single.-fa ni7}- high dcisit`J�. residential 5.:7 units/acre} for all land ** areas except tllose,i,�itI in the present city limits 'of Brentl�=oOd The Brentc�obd Plan x. is. much' less* Specific. In its urUaw--1 and suburban areas- t11e-yPian does 'not designate specific tjTies and irtensitics for" use or specific areas ?'.ather, ztdeFxres lazes , zq.�eas,-.for.which generald6 elopinc:nt policesincl goals ci c set Cort11 Tor c ani�le�� 57 tllc Plan Ciiiies air,Urban Support arca urhich will, l�rvllar l} res]dentral an°liatL�t��t; altllougll. some COIllillE:r Cl1ll and 1i�11t industrial use`n=ay:Ue aIlot.ecl The Urban Suppoit�PCRI r area -'encon�passes..2400 acres, of hd ich 1180 acres (net) pare t`o Ue revelvped fore . resxdent]al :uses. The P11 doesnat specily,where ]n the uan su port rarea the re � s�dea�t al dev lopn.ent :is to occur: Additionally;� tt spe fie5 only broad densitf �� xagLs ;for this ciea►el`opiilont. ' For the remaining 3220 acre designated as Ur balrSupor the Plan'provides"a listing of some cL`the "uses" stili]ch tuould tae a13ot�=ed this 1]stn is not comprelleiisiTe, but oii].r- rcaresentatiire Thus the Plan does not's ecz 7-t ,2_ ` � _` L. F IY t}tp�e, :]ocation i extent or intensity of devcloianlelit ��jlicll ] _ l�s�ned for this re L G„rUZ inain]ai :1220 ;acres; " TI,e Lind Use 'Plan for tlic Urban Service aa�d Subuilian aljeas �s � presented in tlic, �atlle lna,-uiex' ilio Light Indilstrial and r�g1�i .liltuial areas are nioe specific, „. 111tlS, for the Ll S square miles 'designated for Ur)an..ana �ulillrU�ula.tLs�s by{the e ,z Br 11i140t1:1,Pla:1, .fcl� Cl 1.1-c- � co,iipar-!_Sons can be madam Brcnt�,=oou`s ,Ui oad ]tor kids Iasi not .Lie cllrruti coli16arcd with, the County's. specific on rise R p -aposp S. _ 4 l:itli regard to thy' c:f:rci.11.lt:ia:1 e.Lemcnt ,orthe two: plans, Linc, Gaurlty pTai1 ]nciudes' } S categories of roads: �Llao> t!igti�ti=ay, Arterial' and rroposed E�rteraal hreiitlti=aod plan �slloivs a Hi,,Iiway- 4 rcalignmcat` and haS only one category:of .xoacls � , Tllorculfarc.' The major di.f;erence taetweill elle pJ�a1s 1� that t11e B2entwoacl'flan ;sh��iar ; sc;�c1 al:'i titure thoroill l>!:ares :"rich are not ar.dIu d Grr tlxs Caioini Flan i'1rLse is i' rr x tt }�k t z a s .�,�yqwan..- .e `' i tF a- w°�' _. "„zt7 " l +3aS"`*7,s° # M. t �' . } �z 1iK �� _ { 1"R4 yja A LI � ��!ZC�:4. '. •�3 XY' �''� �t ;i } dF L. I r-ri, p 2 3 .. " p5A -arAg ti `� x r _ , , ,--- c r a r + f� '�,QX� l nc i_oac ait c:s t gest 4hox ou�'li t'rzrc l iaikin -Uecr V.-tllcy 96 f tv.i ti; the arca east o C � -- , BI-cj tti•:ocd, this lino,jjpsCdl ,ro.-W becomes a`�Corti1 soutl thopv g If zt a on elle "&""" ,;SzdeS . '. = oC. i3iclit�vooil; uicl -,uiat) l�ralaast�dl v6d cxtcu�l4 Ltd tti !lit IWU --tl south . . . I tlfou`r uk � ' �' y Road '1'iti*o. hall cast ::est lin s arc ��Iso nro psed eht6h big from lte c7t}r easti,=,4 7"'. - the County 'Plat ca1'ls fog ord a .fbj minor e� erisionti links ,= c sung i;oads Tl cs �41'- s ismsiltcl11 e lxnku� ``Dcez alle�r ?toacl'ieitit_Iiillcrest.: lvenuo, Laurel .Load �rITth.- ixl2ereslr;� v,-� . : Ohara 111fenue i%ith .Central Brcnt3.00d, ridcn Pl.a.uts Road c�-tit t-U, - av 4 and ea�tend�ngfi" � 4 Bethel Island.-Road south to Delta Rcad. � �" � w a � il J{ j '+.' .1 .'k 1� } F i11 .}t Cf RL"F} d .}" Y 'a,.E r� . z , Yrte` `, +Y L r I a �, � r ° r I Y er" ' a�1.S� 5 M _ �'7' E .4 { {k� ;Mri : ' * . * x [ SA; i .. k f£ .`.y. >J70-+� `R. 11� l 1 y V' x _ LZ i ,,�, , Illy S L S,. � - - r 1 ,'ao., .. . _ Y Y N. .� 'I- Ff` _ F s%".-MY - , Ir t�k Z' P. .( A"„z 64.'+}x;'`L±o�-,�y $�' a 1 i' .}?' h � 1� Y ,� - 1 ' by y. .�+,t 4 'k:.71 a Y 4 w}i.F� t �� . a x' r,yg�`.r _ . a � y a . �� ` ; E -1 ✓ 1. .} „ . _ t' �. `Y }- t d f : �4I 11-1 �t� rt w s- +a' Q � QQQn Q� - ` ,t... yStr4 1 �`{ i y �' _ r r Klx Ikh" , 5 " '3, r-'!€. > Wyk ry ' t ,i ,^'.., , '�,. `T,`; *v � ',; ate.' q`y a ? ?t'y L•,tS/�N4N3 �+'we d#i'vt . 44*� �2�$ve.+'C'+',^�r,.�i_5y^„ `Y2 , .t�k. �Y;d•+.5.�-h r'L.�.r.��J±N` _ j`i t f; ;Y`e'c 4:,-t Y �,,_ - - �t - � `-ea"g? ;;' ,z _ '"°�Y-� „ ,r �,. �:;,b.r'f , 3II- -Z:-,�.�--, - ,� �^'.. �,}"' s+. �-,ass': r , le - __ - - - �, � , - , 7� - �-I'�'-,�--l��ll-�,*-z-,-�'��l":";�� , , � � . .- I - - , -,, -!,I ,, , ,- % { :S t i CENI{11TT' .k.C it ��t`IICC.Il 1;��. � �, IM �{�`_i�ICll{1dQt�l i� '!F:# ._ e. ,n,.�m' - �Ki ,� Taint l�l.nnt� "uC t'_!:{ii l.il �r�.Exs �Il� yc�Ys;` :� � = f fi ,.; t t t e �_ a f. Total l'I�l�umg lei c 1 1.511 tiglslr� rail es = 29 :sctu.�rc milesII I ` } x, . - y ,. a Hyl . 1 dopt on Stratus .1I�I�i overt by I'1�i1111]ltg hot yet �caxd 1i}�4C t:7 I 11 Co:ia� ssl on o�1 ,3wae 2S, :1 tl i7 Pi;iisn l n �> ,_� Cosionlss, . n. tI,zE..l T Y�y't n,�s `�"I City i incl .alid Adopted : 2.0 square milds' { 2 6 squa2e nlxles�4 � Sphere of` lriiluence T fi. �" � z' Populatiaon:E�olding 12,Ot10 16 700 2G,540 - capa It} for Arclttti,oc3 K �-. z - Plamic Cc6iu a nits �`s „� § ._ R ss a s� Prod ected ��opulat zorl to ,000 hat g� ,e ,, t � : :1.990 for Iirentt.00cl {- ,� 1. s -, F k , v I, mica I?c��n lilted.zoi tlti��ua s�iucn e nl.il.es (�1..$7 . 12.5 sc{uarC lug. s&Y _11. . , mw and Stabtn titin Uses..- squaren:iles shoi,n ..-IS''I.' �' I T ` ,, " �i ricin?uxe in Oaklc;r Planned =� r ' xj� n„ c. CGuI'J11U121tY� ` 1 � area Desi�laated for S sctu:zre miles` (6.2'L. 161 ua e R sq r m�les� f\gri�ulLure: square miles. shovai els Upen - ` � � . Soace in Cou:lty Genera Pl�ri) r "'1"s ` ', ,'. 4.$�i.'�S� F p.:inia�ll {1 rarcel .� ricultur4l-1 esidential S 1`gracul,�[ural 12eszae"nI 4,., ,` 11 1_C2 Cs' 20 -?C1 cS. -,.. i f� Size do 1�gricultural w,ricultul•c co-c 10 a—r-s ilg;1�2,Cilit-ii C C6 , y ,,�& ��`�� 1�1 C1I .tC t4S rs° '.`ter . - s�f- a,;z" S)- -. tlClt r , I;a- Us0' S,eci is to locatiOl� C1CI1 k >iQt s eG1 F3 C aS`tO r� ` t; ). t ,, P s Catcgorics ! sites, uiti L')13es of land use ldcat ol , uses al°icc per{nitCcd ill unilicorpoi:atecl tii han urban <utd rsu , ' 4, ,,,y$�k s a, real , urGan areas: reszden�al; 1s d" ,ty � , ns rangesx g e L - k i. {f f,2, tS - 1 "f ._ Land .Use C:tegorics E1"ricul't-ural Core xIgricultuxal—," , Z'3�S - til,zed a:ithin Plan A ricultllre-Residential agriculture Resxdeni—� � U b, Bensity (i.�itlsin City Il,; scut uxe Itesery ; . - Kul al pcnsity lia{iit) IIs Masi Service: ° x r y t. Cos{ullercial � th liar Sl pports `� £ - , Si;�ale-1 alni�y P.esidential '4`"' Sufi Jxl�a�t � >;�_11- � `, { LdnT Dcnsit, L�Y1'itegrated Industr " : nil^-I';unily Res .lcliti:11al j f 1.i:rl{ P lisit'�, �r 3 Yiai�lze./Scnli i'uial: c �; �f� s > �� f� r ,- a c J,,.t L dE s``et W. e �tE � �� .. ` �r.,,,a,-�` .. -�, r G`s ,OQQ0�0 a s g { � 11 .. fix+++.- "*."`" �M .��y,^� -'*.-r, sw...r - v4t '� ..-I'm. 5•'.>- °-?^ . s _r +'anr.7e"lar ...- _.._xt ., ++r► vW, H ,*. i .l..r . .1.181 x.}a-JY+} A'.. Ikha'.L--e'N A'� re 1. INTRODUCTION This is a continued public hearing on the proposed East County Area General Plan, an amendment to the County General Plan. The amendment was first heard by the Board on December b, 1977. This staff report summarizes and analyzes requests made at the hearing and also provides staff recommendations on the same. Since several individuals presented comments on the issue of agricultural viability and minimum parcel size, a separate discussion on this issue is provided. The concerns of the City of Brentwood will be presented by the City at the January 23, 1978 hearing, and therefore the preliminary comments relating thereto have not been included in this report. The report is divided into three sections: A. Requests for Modification of Plan B. Agricultural Viability and Parcel Size C. Letters Received A. REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF PLAN 1. REQUEST BY: Mr. Bill Craig representing Mr. Frank Miller and Ms. Mary Lauritzen. Mr. Craig requested that the General Plan designation for the Miller and Lauritzen properties at Big Break be changed from Agricultural-Residential back to Industry to reflect the existing heavy industrial zoning on the properties. ANALYSIS: The history of the Lauritzen and Miller requests before the Planning Commission is outlined in a memorandum to the Board of Supervisors from the Director of Planning dated December G, 1977. The subject properties were originally shown as "Industry" in the General Plan developed by the General Plan Review Committee. Staff was concerned that an excessivr.ly large area of Big Break, including the water area, was shown for industry in this original proposal and recommended a reduction of the industrial area to protect the marshland and recreational value of the area. In addition, in a letter dated June 2i, 1977, Mr. Miller and leis. Lauritzen opposed the Industry designation of their property and requested that the Planning Commission designate their property for Agriculture-Residential and recreational uses. At their request, the Planning Commission changed the mainland area to Agriculture-Residential, showed the water area as "Water", and designated the island in Big Break as Recreation. Staff feels most of these properties are not suited for industrial development. Although these properties are currently zoned Heavy Industrial District (H-I) no industrial uses exist on the Miller property. Approximately 10 acres of the Lauritzen property is used as a heavy equipment storage yard. Severe 000040 t� limitations exist for development on portions of these properties due to the presence of marshlands which pose building constraints (information obtained from USGS quads and soil maps). The major portion of the property is water (see map) and both the shoreline and water area provide important wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities. The greater portion of these properties also Les within .he 100 year flood plain and should be protected from intensive urban development. In addition it is highly unlikely that these properties would be needed for industrial expansion during the time frame of the General Plan (10 years). Only approximately 120 acres of an area exceeding 500 acres in size, shown for Industry in the General Plan, are presently used for industry. In addition, large industrially zoned areas exist in Antioch and Pittsburg, which are available for industrial expansion without the limitations found in the Big Break area. Staff recommends that the Lauritzen property be designated as Agriculture- Recreation, reflecting the marshland area and the importance of the Big Break shoreline for recreation and wildlife habitat. The water area should be shown as "water", consistent with the designation of other water areas in the General Plan. The Miller property to the south is not marshland and its southern portion has access to the railroad. The northern portion borders marshland and has soils ` with severe limitations to development. Staff recommends that the southern portion of the Miller Property, which adjoins the railroad, be shown for Industry and that the northerly portion be shown for Agriculture- Recreation, recognizing the development constraints which exist and the importance of providing a buffer between future industrial uses near the railroad and the marshland habi,at at the shoreline. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Show the Lauritzen property as Agriculture-Recreation and Water. 2. Show the Miller property as Agriculture-Recreation,and Industry (see Maps 1 and 2). 2. REQUEST BY: Torn Olson Mr. Olson requested that a b acre parcel on the northwest corner of Gateway Boulevard and Piper Road on Bethel Island be changed from a Single Family Residential - Low Density designation to a "Commercial" designation to allow him to rezone the site to Retail Business. (R-B). He intends'to build a shopping center on the si to (See map 3). The site is presently zoned for General Agriculture (A-2). It is bordered by large lot singt,� farnify residences to the north and east, golf course property immediately a.i;acent to the west, and the proposed Delta Coves development to the south. 000040 -2- tr The General Plan adopted by the Planning Commission designates sufficient area for future retail business and commercial uses and groups them in logical locations, i.e., Bethel Island Road, north end of Piper Road and the east end of Gateway Boulevard. In addition, a 6 acre Neighborhood Shopping Center exists approximately 400 feet to the west of the subject property. Staff feels that retail uses here would be a duplication of services and would inhibit the General Plan's intent to consolidate commercial uses in areas where they already exist and can be logically expanded. The request could also set a precedent for similar requests along Gateway Boulevard and thus could initiate undesireable strip commercial development. RECOMMENDATION: Retain the Single Family Residential - Low Density designation for the site. 3. REQUEST BY: Henry Hampton Mr. Hampton requested that those areas with poorer, alkali soils in the . Agriculture-Residential category east of Knightsen be allowed to be subdivided into lots with one acre minimum areas so that saleable parcels can be created in these areas. He stated that private water and sewage disposal systems should be allowed on one acre parcels. ANALYSIS: The General Plan recognizes the existence of poorer soils in the area and has designated a 5 acre minimum parcel size here. One acre minima would not be appropriate since it is the policy of the General Plan to accommodate urban densities only subject to availability of a public utility. No public utilities ax-ist in the area: the site is outside both water and sewer districts. In addition, a large portion of the lowlands east of Knightsen is within the 100 year flood plain and therefore the number of facilities to be located there should be ►minimized. The County Health Department has experienced problems with septic tank disposal systems in the area due to poor percolation and high groundwater and therefore a proliferatior. of septic tanks and wells on one acre parcels WOLI!d not be desirable. The Planning Commission recognized in its review of the Agriculture- Residential category that no criteria for subdivision within this area is provided in the General Plan text and also was aware that some areas have already been subdivided significantly to parcels of less than 5 acres. It directed the Planning Department to consider this issue in the Agricultural Viability Study. RECOMMENDATION: No Change. 4. REQUEST BY: Jack Hernandez Mr. Hernandez expressed his support for the ten acre minimum parcel size in the Agricultural Core area, and felt that no further study was needed on the issue of parcel sizes for agricultural lands. 000040 -3- RECOMMENDATION: See discussion on Agricultural Viability and Parcel Size. 5. REQUEST BY: Jo Ann Dean, representing herself and the Sierra Club. Ms. Dean expressed the foliowing concerns: a) The East County area should not be considered separately from the rest of the county when allocating land uses. Adequate lands exist for expansion of industrial uses in the Antioch/Pittsburg area. The Big Break area is a valuable recreational and wildlife habitat resource and should be designated as such in the County General Pian. It is not needed for industrial expansion. b) The Oakley Planned Community, as the EIR for the General Plan points out, is four times larger than it needs to be to accommodate growth through the time frame of the plan. c) The Agriculture-Residential category with a 5 acre parcel minimum is not suitable for the foothill areas where prime wildlife habitat exists for endangered species such as the San Joaquin kit fox. d) The sub-committee on Agriculture of the General Plan Review Committee recommended a 20 acre minimum for the Agriculture Core area. This was later reduced to a 10 acre minimum before a vote of the full committee. A 20 acre minimum would :More adequately preserve the prime soils in the Agricultural Core for agriculture. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS a) Staff agrees that the Big Break area is a valuable recreational and wildlife habitat resource and that industrial uses may threaten this natural resource. The .shoreline area is also within the 100 year flood plain and contains soils with severe 'limitations to development. For these reasons staff recommends that the shoreline to Jersey Island be designated agriculture-Recreation, together with the Dal Porto and northern portion of the :Miller properties. The Plan adopted by the Planning Commission already designates the water area as "water" and the islands in Big Break as Recreation. See discussion item #1 and Maps 1 and 2 . b) The Oakley Planned Community is much larger than needed to accommodate the projected population over the next ten years. The area north of the Contra Costa Canal can accommodate the anticipated growth of the Oakley-Sandhill community through this period. The General Plan recognizes the need for some kind of phasing mechanis;n for growth and states as a policy on page 20 of the Draft Plan that the Oakley area south of Laurel load is considered "Interim Agriculture", to be cons": Bred for subaivision only when the area north of Laurel Road is largely developed and when adequate utility capacity is available and service lines are in proximity to the area. The concept of "Interim Agriculture" also recognizes that some subdivision has taken place in the area and that the soils are not prime. 0000,10 -4- RECOMMENDATION: take no changes on items a) and b) and see discussion on agricultural viability for additional concerns. 6. REQUEST BY: Larry Orman, representing People for Open Space, San Francisco. Mr. Orman expressed the following concerns: a) The minimum parcel sizes established for the agricultural areas are inadequate to carry out the Plan's goal of preserving agriculture. The County should establish a 20 acre minimum in the Agricultural Core as a base line and as a clear statement that the County intends to preserve agriculture in East County. A 10 acre minimum does not hold the line against ranchette subdivision. b) if development is not intended in the foothill areas of the Agricultural- Residential category, then why allow residential development at a 5 acre minimum? The entire foothill area should be placed in a 100 acre minimum parcel size, as in Alameda County, to protect grazing operations and discourage residential development. c) Some kind of buffer area should be established around the City of Brentwood between intensive agriculture and urban development. d) The Plan has no cost evaluation of continued low density development in agricultural areas. e) The Plan needs a well defined policy statement on the County's goal for urbanization in East County and the Pian needs to be tightened up for consistency with goals. ANALYSI_5 AND RECOMMENDATIONS: a) See discussion of Agricultural Viability and Parcel Size . b) See discussion on Agricultural Viability and Parcel Size. c) The Agricultural Core lands adjacent to the City of Brentwood are, for the most part, in intensive agricultural production. This is especially true of lands to the south and east of Brentwood located along the eastern edge of the City of Brentwood are several public schools which provide a buffer between agriculture and residential uses. Along the southern edge, McLaren and Balfour Roads separate urban and agricultural uses. Lands to the west of Fairview do not consist of prime soils and :ire shown for Agricultural-Residential uses. Lands to the north of Brentwood have experienced some subdivision but contain prime soils and the Agricultural Core designation will provide a holding mechanism until these lands can annex to the city with full services. Staff recommends no change to the Plan. -5- 0000"10 {l d) The Plan does not include an economic evaluation of continued subdivision of agricultural lands. It is likely that increasing parcelization in agricultural areas will generate costs to the public in loss of productive soils and open space, and in increased demand for services such as fire and police protection, general administrative services and roads. The taxes generated from lots at 5 - 10 acres may not bL: sufficient to pay for these countywide services. Staff recommends that this issue be addressed more thoroughly in the Agriculture Viability Study. e) The Plan does provides projected population and holding capacity data for the Planned Community areas, provides a policy for phasing of growth in the Oakley Planned Community, and ties subdivision in the Planned Communities to availa- bility of utilities. Staff recommends no change to the Plan. 7. REQUEST BY: Charles Wof ford Mr. Wofford expressed the following concerns: a) Some portions of the Oakley area north of Laurel Road and west of Empire Road should remain in General Agricultural (A-2) zoning. b) Some students in Oakley attend Antioch city schools; no discussion of the problem of crowding in the Antioch schools is given in the Plan. c) Phone service in Oakley is adequate. d) Adequate buffers should be provided around the industrial area in Oakley and around the railroad tracks to protect residential development. e) Only 60 water hook-ups remain in the Oakley Water District for public water service. ANALYSIS AND RECOMIMENDATIONS: a) The area between Oakley and Laurel Roads west of Empire Road is shown in the draft Pian as Single Family Residential - Low Density. Subdivision of these lands is tied to utility availability. Water from Oakley Water District is available to most of these parcels. The County Planning Commission recently heard several applications to rezone parcels in this area from General Agriculture District A-2 to Single Family Residential District R-40. Con- sidering the significant amount of subdivision which has occured in this area to below 5 acre parcels (6 minor subdivision in the area, to 5 acres and below, are pending or have been heard recently), and the fact that Oakley water is available to parcels in the area, the R-40 zoning is appropriate and anticipates the new General Plan designation. The General Plan designation reflects the fact that this area is no longer viable for commercial agriculture and that one public utility is available in the area. Staff recommends no change in the draft Plan. -6- 00%,, b) The school capacity problem in East County is addressed in the EIR on the draft General Plan. No recommendation. c) The phone service problems experienced in some parts of Oakley are not unique to this area. According to the phone company, some delay in extension service to new residential development may be necessary. No recommend- ation. d) The industrial area in Oakley is separated from residential uses by the railroad and State Highway 4. The railroad at the western portion of the Oakley Planned Community is bordered along most of its length by parcels in agriculture, and parcels on which staff does not anticipate development through the time period of the General Plan. The only exception is Neroly Ranchos, which was committed to development before the development of the new General Plan. Staff recommends no change to the Plan. e) The Oakley Water District's policy to accept only 60 additional hook-ups is a policy adopted for the duration of the current drought only. The District receives its water from the Contra Costa Water District and, except for the drought, docs not anticipate capacity problems in the near future. No recommendation. 8. REQUEST BY: Mr. Tino Bacchini Mr. Bacchini, a farmer in the Brent•.vood area, stated that no farmer can make a living on a 10, 20 or 50 acre parcel in East County. He felt agriculture would continue in the area with farmers working several parcels and that too much emphasis was being placed or, parcel size. RECOMMENDATION: See discussion on agricultural vi ability and parcel size . 9. REQUEST BY: Mr. Richard 4'all representing Mr. Bill Garin. Mr. Wall requcated ;hat the Count,.- work with tike City of Brentwood Lo coordinate policies regarding the �ustern border of the City of Brentwood. Mr. Garin farms land on the eastern border of the City of. Brentwood immediately adjacent to Edna Hill Elementary School. The land contains prime soils and is shown on the General Plan as Agricultural Core (See Map 4). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recomMends no change in the designation of the Garin property. 10. REQUEST BY: Mr. Fred Greenlaw Mr. Greenlaw owns land south of Brentwood shown as Agricultural Core. He 000gti 0 -7- stated that the County Plan for a 10 acre minimum was more reasonable than the City plan which shows a 40 acre minimum adjacent to 6,000 square foot lots at the southern edge of the city. Mr. Greenlaw supports a 10 acre parcel size buffer around the City of Brentwood. RECOMMENDATION: See discussion on Agricultural Viability and Parcel Size B. AGRICULTURAL VIABILITY AND PARCEL SIZE There has been much discussion during the public hearings on the General Plan as to the issue of parcel size and agricultural viability. Several individuals have expressed concern that the minimum parcel sizes established in the agricultural areas are not large enough to protect these lands adequately from non-agricultural uses and therefore achieve the basic goal of the Plan -- the preservation of agri- culture. Several factors threaten commercial agriculture in East County; among them are high costs of labor and operations, taxes, and competition with larger farms in the West San Joaquin Valley/Tracy area. However, one of the major problems facing commercial agriculture is continued parcelization and ranchette development in areas of prime soils. Small parcel sizes permit residential development which, as the Plan states, is incompatible with commercial agriculture activities. The question of what parcel size is adequate to ensure agricultural viability is a comply one. The answer is dependent upon several variables: type of crop, soil type, availability of water and management techniques. However, it is generally agreed that the larger the scale of the farming.operation, the easier it is to compete with similarly situated smaller fragmented farms. Adjoining counties in the Bay area have far larger minimum parcel sizes for agricultural lands than those proposed in the draft Plan. Agricultural Core The draft Plan proposes a ten acre minimum parcel size for the Agricultural Core area of prime soils. At present, parcels of less than 10 acres in size comprise 51;16 of the total number of parcels in the Agricultural Core but only 7% of the land area. This is an indication of the considerable subdivision activity which has occurred here. The average parcel size in the Agricultural Core is 23 acres. Although, it is true that farmers in the Brentwood area may farm several small parcels together, the 10 acre minimum invites ranchette and non-agricultural uses. If, as Mrs. Dean and others suggest, a 20 acre parcel minimum were to be established in the Agricultural Core, this would restrict subdivision of lands between ten and .wenty acres and would further protect prime soils from parcelization. With a 20 acre minimum parcel size, 3041 acres more would be protected from further subdivision than with a ten acre minimum is with a 20 acre minimum, 41`:0 of the Agricultural Core area is protected from further subdivision; under a ten acre minimum, only 20% of the area is protected. Agricultural Residential The General Plan designates 54,125 acres, or nearly one-half of the East County -s- 00()0,10 Planning Area, for Agriculture-Residential uses at a 5 acre minimum. Within this land use category considerable differences exist in topography, land use and parcel size. The lowland area around Knightsen supports some row crops and ranchette development at one to five acres parcel sizes. The land is flat and much of it lies within the 100 Year flood plain. Parcel sizes are small, most below 40 acres and there exists a developed road network. The foothill areas to the south and west of the Agricultural Core, in contrast, support almost exclusively grazing activities which require much larger parcel sizes Public roads are few; water is scarce. In view of these differences, and because the General Plan encourages extensive agriculture in the foothills (page 14), it does not appear reasonable to apply the same 5 acre parcel size minimum in the foothill areas as in the lowland areas around Knights--n. The foothills represent 32,730 acres, of which 9,080 iacres are in parcels larger .than 100 acres. Approximately 12,500 acres, or 38% of the area, is currently in Agricultural Preserves. This area is not suited for residential uses at a 5 acre minimum because much of this area is used for grazing. Ranchette uses and even moderate concentrations of homes and people are incompatible with grazing use and the large acreages required for viable ranching. Introduction of ranchette uses could also have a negative impact on tax assessment and tax rate of adjacent properties engaged in ranching. The area has no access to urban services, including roads in some cases. Slopes are steep--often over 20%, and therefore unsuitable for septic tank use in many areas. Ground water supply and quality may not be adequate for domestic use on a continued, reliable basis. If the foothill area is not intended for residential development, a large parcel minimum is more likely to preserve the area in agriculture and open space uses than the 5 acre minimum proposed by the Plan. Agricultural-Recreation In the Agriculture Recreation designation, set for a 20 acre parcel minimum there are only 163 parcels in an area of 31,387 acres. Soils here are not prime and generally grains are grown requiring larger acreages than row and orchard crops in the Agric.ilture Core. These lands are also subject to flooding. Although this area. has not experienced the extent of parcelization which has occurred in the Agriculture Core, a larger parcel minimum would more accurately reflect parcel size and agricultural use and more adequately protect these flood prone lands from development. .Larger minimum parcel sizes, especially in the Agriculture Core and Agriculture Residential categories, would go further towards achieving the basic goal of the Plan -- the preservation of Agriculture. The Planning Commission recommended a 5, 10, and 20 acre parcel minimum in the Agricultural-Residential, Agriculture- Core and Agricultural -Recreation areas respectively. They also directed the Planning Department to prepare an Agricultural Viability Study which will address The issue of parcel size and review zoning requirements for those agricultural areas which have already been significantly subdivided below the established minimum. -9- OO()O J O RECOMMENDATION: The General Plan approved by the Planning Commission represents a compromise in agricultural parcel size, this compromise includes the commitment to investigate this issue: more fully in an Agricultural Viability and Parcel Size Study. Following that study, if the results warrant, a different rninimum parcel size can then be considered for the agricultural areas. Staff recommends no change in the Planning Commission recommendation, at this time, but does agree with testimony which indicates that larger parcels are desirable and possibly necessary to support efficient commercial agricultural enterprises. F. LETTERS RECEIVED 1. Letter from Mr. William O. Garin, dated December 15, 1977. Mr. Garin made the following major points: a. Some discussion of drainage of farmland east of Brentwood and a definite plan to handle Brentwood City storm water should be included in the County or City's General Plan. b. The effort to retain large scale farming operations in the Brentwood area is not economically reasonable. Small acreages (50 acres and less) are impossible to farm effectively. c. The Brentwood General Plan, is appropriate for the Garin property because it permits Mr. Garin the option of continuing to farm or to annex his property to the City of Brentwood for development. ANALYSIS AND RECOM 4ENDATION: a. The EIR on the East County Area General Plan discusses briefly the storm drainage situation in the County. Serious storm drainage problems do exist in the City of Brentwood and in the lowland areas east of the City. The City is working with the County Flood Control Division of the County Public Works Department to find solutions to the problem. The County Plan, by outlining specific densities for urban development and areas for agriculture, attempts to direct development so that its impact on storm drainage is minimized. No staff recommendation. b. This issue is discussed in the section on Agricultural Viability and Parcel size. c. The East County Area General Plan snows the Garin property east of Brentwood as Agricultural Care -- intended for farming at a 10 acre minimum parcel size. The City's draft General Plan shows the western portion of the Garin property for "Sub-Urban" uses ( densities from .5 to 4.5 dwellings unit per acre), and the eastern portion for agriculture at 20 and 40 acre minimum parcel sizes. The principal goal of the County General Plan is to protect prime soils for Agriculture and direct Urban growth in areas less suitable for Agriculture. Since the soils on the Garin property are prime and the parcel is currently used for Commercial Agriculture, the Agricultural-Core designation is appropriate. The General Plan will be reviewed in five years and, if needed, the General Plan designation can be changed at that time. Staff recommends no change to the Pian. -10- ' 00C)odo s C? 2. Letter from Larry Orman of People for Open Space, San Francisco, dated December 19, 1977. Mr. Orman sent a copy of the Statement on the Plan by the People for Open Space. Its recommendations include: a. Rezone the Agricultureal-Core to a 20 acre minimum and develop a buffer plan for protecting the area from urbanization. b. Investigate long term Williamson Act contracts, strict development guide- lines for non-conforming parcels, and detachment from urban-saving tax districts for lands in the Agricultural-Core. c. Designate Agriculture-Residential area as Extensive Agriculture and rezone it to a very large parcel size ( 100 acres). d. Institute phasing controls in the Planned Communities to ensure compact and contiguous growth. e. Consider regulatory measures to encourage a more positive job and housing balance. f. Before deciding on the type and extent of growth allowed in the "Planned Communities," undertake a thorough cost-revenue study to assess the long term fiscal responsibility to the County of the type of development called for in the Plan. g. Decrease the amount of land in the "Planned Community" area to levels more consistent with anticipated growth; place these excluded lands in the Ag- Core or Extensive Agriculture categories. ANALYSIS AND RECONMIENDATION: a. This issue is addressed in the section on Agricultural Viability and Parcel Size and in response to Air. Orman's comments presented at the public hearing, B. Staff recommends that all or some of those issues be addressed in the Agricultural Viability Study. c. This is addressed in the Agriculture Viability and Parcel Size section. d. The Plan does attempt to stage growth in the Planned Community by relating development to public utility availability. The portion of the Oakley community south of Laurel Road is designated "Interim Agriculture" and is not intended for development until water and sewer lines are extended and until most of the area north of Laurel load is built out at the densities assigned by the General Plan. Staff recommends no changes in the Plan. e. The statement is not specific as to what regulatory measures are suggested to achieve a "job/housing balance." No staff recommendation. -12- 000040 f. A cost revenue study of the development proposals of the Plan would be useful but is not a high priority work item of the Planning Department at this time. In the meantime, adoption of a new General Plan is needed to provide development policies for the Planned Communities. No recommendation at this time. g. The area designated as "Interim Agriculture" in the Oakley Planned Community is not intended for development during the planning period. This designation recognizes that the viability of commercial agriculture here is marginal, soils are not prime, and some subdivision for ranchette uses has already occurred. For these reasons, staff does not feel that an Agricultural- Core or Extensive Agriculture category is appropriate here. Staff recommends no change in the Oakley Planned Community designation. KO:lyl:dr:blh:mb 1/18/78 -12- 0000'aQ �� V, Blind Po lnt ' r 77 Amelia 1-61ilig IS cly rri, �f• MLIF.D GEPdCRAI. PaAlia .., •.•'• `�' ��CJ"CHS� '�\, � ., \ � ••., + •wa :• .�•: .::•is ..,f i::.... • • I °� J•y:.. . .a{FFJ BIG BREAK _ ..w .• • v ' 7J MAR111A • A7HITZEN 1 I I ac N : B I G B I? E A K t .', r > I•t,aT' ?• ¢Q F J n �]] �, l 'NORTH + ! .jlZ 11 ,{ ��f vr,�rJ. :• • �tt:l • ¢^. 41• ,t \ rl 2t S:r JM 4 � .. _ .,1;31 -!t r� :� • I —"" • P+, o $: 1: - / 1 ° CJ00 ,5 f,r. + y.�C T..i ;r v,1( Y w. ii ;i' :•:: Y':v:\ {::::�:�. .. ..�,..,,.�� ) '1� F 1 4 .• y �;tr -t't I,` •,' >.I,F1e•: _ - _ • \:::•; .•r•;r:.:!'t:......:•:::::.�, -� � I Ir. r.f.• C 1''.. {tip::•:•':•:: t r5 _ -tI t Zt .O- it: .t t _ t - .4.GA:1• .i:ii. ram .• o' f',•:;?'�• �•i •1: .f •c r. ?1 '1 - ,.F tom, � I �•'\ r 4':'• i t 1: j.. .y �.� K :1 J •J ^' ••� >. .:: �.. I YI+Y+•:4 .Yr L. : . V ':�•:ti _I l � i 1 i I {/ 'DA 1. - •x �n r o• I I � 7 I _ - ArT R E 1UR , I• r� t� n i' 1 :'y - oj, .r - rt I- l,•= C r I •1 ti -i•: y c _ •1 ._� t� I f It a 1 :•J _ 0 a 3•. 1 M .. r:•.. 7r -7 \. Q'44 V� fi z� c itY i I' r :f: 1 t' C v , .. It, ., :z • •• •_' PROPERTY BOUNDARY R�Y p . \, 'y. h Y _ I l r-. R. I - _.1 r e� i - I !! r I' fill �; ♦i /.;'� \ LSE t.T F.—p 1. j ♦:'= Blind POinf A i {Y T� r ..• � .. �••r++�++•fir rr+ .. + ,.-;` .,1,/ \:• rr,` u t;a �',• ~ �l �` • ••1 '•+•, U7'G'11�: �' RECOMMENDED CHANGE:"'' ,t Bio BREAK LN MARINA � � •,73.7f AC w:i R I G' B R R A IC ws AC �f Nt>RTH' • ct • '_r ,i r r tt z i �. �' 2000" � . IL Y. 1 i ♦ pa oo .l'y C: ^i.. -�'f'�'•,�lY-'.:lis - � r �. ;;.},� '.� ..�»...•. `a ......�. tip:• �t••.: w¢r a 4- - 1 rw a (1 F \ as \ i /•J/•�1'✓��jl/aiAv .f, •s.....•c�3•.•r•..• fr�f� !J a � � '�5.�•.W::�`:•:•: — I - i, - i ,Jt„x? r 1 ! z �� 1i!//i'/j� y !� r!!! ��/�� Y ..A;:•:!:�?:::':;�:�::;::;f��.,<<��:;t i M� .. :yti 1p J hi .J ..1 i 1 :�.�� .'.f, til:'"•�. 1 . ::::•:::::::.::}:::.}::`:.:;'>' DAL PORTX,...`. y.E. M/R�.E:, E t DE �� w UL - ii �r AGRICULUREPLANNED 6�^r•i �� a �etAeN ETA PROPERTY BOUNDARY r .. zti i • —, OLSON REQUEST iT- ISLAND BETHEL t I , i � •� NORTH {" 600, + s 77 Li 000 to t NP, 81 p t 00 , .. .->-"- tAo 600 � •� � Its , W � t; t FaRUs t tRRiG�75 \ t 00(\�LTIJ, V ` t•M`L 1 , UL .� 1 ,,,,• �,t" J i+3t } DISTRICT OFFICES 0 BRENTWOOD EL CENTRO PHOENIX Ther Company O•CEE ___ LAZY*G MAIN OFFICE•P.O. DRAWER 1731•SALINAS. CALIFORNIA 93901 AREA CODE 408 ---- Salinas, California . TELEPHONE SALINAS. 424.7633 anuary 27, 1978 L. D. PHONE SALINAS. 424-6711 RECEIVED J A N �60 1978 J. R. OLSSON CLERK g BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ,.COrIi . CO. �_.De Mr. Robert Schroder Board of Supervisors P. 0. Box_ 951 Martinez, California 94553 Dear Mr. Schroder: I wish to thank you for your patience and interest shown at the presentation we made on January 23rd in regard to the East Contra Costa General Plan. I realize your job is very tedious, and I wouldn't take it if the pay was a hundred thousand per year. I did feel we fairly represented our case and hope you will give our problems some consideration. Very truly yours, THE GARIN COMPANY �A - William 0. Garin WOG:dz FOR "O'ER }"� OR �ATION..^...., ;•;��.Mf�,•.U000,,V (�� 1 r!j'zacuertd rrsd �S'�`ilsfJ� o� G��lr.�otss4 c�sd �4�ci�w ?/eyel�.,l�es ,-�� r• r tfle -ci = r' '- .::�Y:r.:.dC.-..." b*ig '--ideas ,... ,. By STEVE LOPEZ: BRENTWOOD - This tiny East Contra Costa County town of 3,882 is s „ � `� fighting to become self-sufficient- --i-The elf-sufficient-The problem is that the city'sr growth plan is.in conflict with the county's-general plan for the area.7s ; The city has aired its concerns-at' two public hearings with the Contra. :Costa County-Board of SupervisorE.,, #'I .,Monday, though the-:board Iref s i "the issue to Supervisor Eric-.Hassel- tine a�._ tine and asked that-.he study it and t"`A'e.have no compelling desire to : become.a big city," Brentwood City t.. _ Manager James Buell said yesterday.;, I ` "There is only a desire to achieve`:- aVdegree of growth that will improve ` I housing opportunities, broaden the tax base and-make the city a mored self-sufficient economic unit - CITY MANAGER JAMES 1ztJE11 -. _i-`"Presently-we have residents----- f` c doing their shopping in nearby cities. Brentwood wants_ amfrolbd grswth:, 1 'The -business district and the city,- need -a. greater.revenue source and b'- and.:Antioels,:he��dCIW =we�must have people do business - here to.accomplish that" l "We're getting-new't�idemts,'�ve have:new housing' developments.. 'The-'city's: plan calls for expan going up and others Am planned. ^'. sion:'from gone square, mile,:the�-. .- - - -r• . . .. _ .,, ...,-. . ,present..-area,:to as much-as 30order to'keep:--from,°disinte- :square miles and an eventual popuIa- rgrating or decayins-to-lowerraad tion of more'--than 20,000, to be ac- !,lower levels -of�service,;rftAz_;neces :`-coinP hed by annex=ation. _.;::t,:= sary to modernize., There-is need for -. a more reliable revenue baseJ The county's plan would limit thez+ 1•.,r :city to two square miles and protect, Buell said:the,city's plan;•winch,'. �-the-agricultural land around the city,: has been on:record since 1965,.calls., :from-developrnent _ ,- ;for:-additioaa2 commercial services, -business and':housing .developments.. "'Their;plan shows 700 or 800 -in-the`center of the city,rather than' acresof'the agricultural land used scattering developments throughout'w by_ne .developments,"- said Anthony_ 30 -to -the-proposed,30-sqile area of .Dehaesus Fcounty director of-plan- annexation - City Council 'And Planning Com- "'•They also project something like.,,.mission reports-indicate the general a population of 12,000 by 1990_ That's .;feeling among the city's residents is a considerable growth rate, and it's ,.that controlled, calculated growth•ig ,hard to expect:when yowlook at the.. -desirable. city's .capacity_-to service such an :.area. - .�. "One of the important concepts is self-determination. Buell said. -'i'Buell said the city does not wish td growbeyond its means. But Cen-" "`"Brentwood wants to be able to tral.County cities are becoming over- determine its own destiny. We--feel.- crowded e--feel crowded and people are beginning to 'we should have the power to do-vrMt- move to Brentwood as well as Pitts- we believe is in our best-interm PLEASE LEPAIW SLIP ON PODIUM OR HAND T& CLERK CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS s ITEM NUMBER: FULL NAME: DATE: •2 3 7� STREET ADDRESS: Q 7-,c1tr/Zp ��- PHONE: 3571" CITY: 0,,ec��y;CG,rY�1.� REPRESENTING (FIRM OR ORGANIZATION, IF .ANY) COMMENTS: 0000il U PLEASE LEAVE SLIP ON PODIUM OR HAND TO CLERK CONTRA MPSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS EM NUMBER: FULL NAME: �y�ffi«ES�i7L /f= �1� DATE: r � ' STREET ADDRESSs/� �yi�' 7 PHONE: CITY: REPRESENTING (FIRM OR ORGANIZATION, IF ANY) : 000010 COMMENTS: PLEASE LEAF SLIP ON PODIUM OR HAND RCLERK CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ITEM, NUMBER: // , DATE: FULL NAME: ' " �' ' STREET ADDRESS:—/- PHONE: CITY: A c REPRESENTING (FIRM OR ORGAdIZATION, IF ANY) : COMMENTS: PLEASE LEjg SLIP ON PODIUM OR HAND CLERK CONTRA. COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ITEM NUMBER: FULL NAME: DATE: STREET ADDRESS: - - L8 U PHONE: r- CITY: /J REPRESENTING (FIR'K OR ORGANIZATION, IF ANY) : 000U;._ COMMENTS: PLEASE LEAK SLIP ON PODIUM OR HAND CLERK CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ITEM NUMBER: FULL NAME: Ltd V, C i> , ci a t DATE: STREET ADDRESS:- �•�%, ., �c J a : s ,/J',. . PHONE: Y2 -1 CITY: t S -s u,cs ( 11 t r REPRESENTING (FIRM OR ORGANIZATION, IF ANY) A k a ort,AK T ic TA,-e- 3 ,yc . �J R v V V•V I COMMENTS: 0 e '1 r IL ./r4(.� C�../ ✓ � C•'ice S.�-r� !r ; �� .��O:c S� �C .2 � �,L �u rc.t <J S r � ` � H ot , a�-.�"4 J" anuc r i S PLEASE LEAVE SLIP ON PODIUM OR HAND TO CLERK CONTRA IRSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ITEM NUMBER: FULL NAME: < <�.a r,�, o c,,. DATE: 1- _23 -7r STREET ADDRESS: l 3 �G .S�G e c 7`' PHONE: 7s 7-4e�54/S` CITY: '/tvc ti REPRESENTING (FIRM OR ORGANIZATION, IF ANY) : `� Q cI r " t a �ni�n 4 JL Y L!1r. L .-,J n Iv S o-�✓f c.�. COMMENTS: 000040 PLEASE LEPM SLIP ON PODIUM OR HAND T& CLERK CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ITEM NUMBER: FULL NAME: c (_ ,-� + DATE• 3`7 � ti C,� u�-t.� . STREET ADDRESS:—'Li'' / 'S��- � PHONE: 6 3 r 30-0 f CITY: REPRESENTING (FIRM OR ORGANIZATION, IF ANY) : COMMENTS: r, • • RECEIVED SAN FRANCISCO JAN .Z3 1978 BA1] CHAPTER J. R. OLIN - _ jinn CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIE L\L`A CLU n U B Y CONT OSTA CO. 5608 COLLEGE AVENUE OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94618 / (415)658-7470 MT. DIABLO REGIONAL GROUP, c/o Harry G. Reeves Rt. 2, Box 174 F, Oakley, CA 94561 Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 651 Pine St. Martinez, Calif. Subject : Bast Contra Costa County General Plan The Sierra Club is in general agreement with the stated goals of the draft General Plan for Fast Contra Costa County drawn up by the citizens committee, especially the objective of preservation of prime farmland. It is not, however, likely that the plan in its present form will accomplish: its goals. The ten acre minimum parcel on prime agricultural land is not large enough to have a deterent effect on development, nor is ten acres a viable farming unit. A larger minimum, at least 20 acres, is urged and was suggested by the agricultural subcommittee of the citizens' committee. The five acre minimum on hill lands is also inappropriate. 2,000 or 3,000 acres is a viable grazing parcel; ranchers usually operate on several such units. Hill lands with numerous five acre "ranchettes" would seriously interfere with the cattle grazing capability of the land and would damage wildlife habitat value as well. The numbers of dogs introduced with each residence would create serious problems with both domestic stock and wildlife. Hilly rangeland is generally among the least desirable in terms of soil capabilities for agricultural production. This is precisely what the cattle industry and the consumer must depend upon to keep the production of beef within the cost range of the average family. Well managed rangeland has also been shown ip studies by U.C. and Fish & Game to provide highly favorable wildlife habitat capable of supporting maximum deer and quail populations. 100 acres might be a tolerable minimum parcel size, but certainly not five acres, in the Agricultural-Residential areas. Financial incentive to the landowner is vastly more important than acreage limitations in preserving agriculture. Use of the Williamson Act should be encouraged to this end, but more help is needed. Tax assessments should be made with agriculture considered as the highest and best usg. Assessment criteria should be addressed in the plan-- this would be a creative ;Hove in the planning process. Other measures such as special development taxes to be used for farmland preservation should also be evaluated. 0000.1-0 e.C. �� - / '-L- AGENDA ITENI n � (date) .."`...' (date) The committee was right in restricting growth of the City of Brentwood, which is surrounded by prime farmland. Oakley is the better choice to accomodate future growth. The EIR indicates that Oakley is shown on the draft plan three times larger than necessary for reasonable growth. Unless the area is reduced scattered devel- opment will lead to the loss of productive farmland unnecessarily. The plan should furthermore provide criteria for phasing development, thereby assuring infilling of existing residential neighborhoods consistent with water and sewer capabilities. Finally, we feel that the designation "industrial" applied to the shoreline at Big Break is incompatable with the "recreational" desig- nation of the body of water itself. This is a particularly attractive site for park use with the growing population's requirement for rec- reation areas. The industrial designation would serve to increase property value where industry is not essential. It appears that the inclusion of industrial sites resulted from the committee's belief that their task was to allow for a balanced economy within the East County area. We wish to emphasize that Contra Costa County and the Bay Area must be regarded in a comprehensive way. There is an ample endowment of industrial shoreline within the county without extending into the East County shoreline. We encourage you, the Board of Supervisors, to accept the goals of this plan in the sense of providing a quality environment for the citizens of Contra Costa County, with particular attention being paid to providing protection to agricultural land of the East County. Sincerely, 7 Harr , Mari Mt. Diablo Regional Group Sierra Club 1 People RECEIVED for DEC -'0' Space ,. R. ol�N Open CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS -.De 46 Kearny • San Francisco, CA,94108 (415)781-8729 December 19, 1977 Supervisor Warren Boggess, Chairman Contra Costa Co. Board of Supervisors P.O. Box 911 Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Supervisor Boggess: Enclosed, as a follow-up to my comments of December 6 at the Board meeting on the East County Area General Plan Draft, is the full text of the People for Open Space statement. Please distribute copies to the full Board. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Larry Orman Project Coordinator • • People for Open Space 46 Kearny San Francisco, CA, 94108 (415) 781-8729 STATEMENT ON EAST COUNTY AREA GENERAL PLAN DRAFT Presented to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors by Larry Orman, December 6, 1977 Contents 1. Introduction 2. Inconsistencies in Plan draft 3. Recommendations 4. Conclusion 5. Addenda: note on Santa Clara County rezoning; consideration of economic impact of POS recommendations; selected plan EIR references 41 Summary of Statement While POS finds that the central goal in the draft plan of preserving agriculture in the East County is an appropriate one, the plan as presently written is not adequate to implement that goal. In addition, the plan's policies, element descriptions, and implementation measures contain a number of apparent inconsistencies. Generally, POS believes that for the plan to be effective, it will require: (1) stronger land use controls in the designated "agricultural core" area, including 20-acre zoning; (2) a revision of the "agricultural residential" area concept to preclude rural residential subdivision and to establish very large parcel (i.e. , 100-acre) zoning, and (3) revision of the "planned community" goals to clarify desired form of urban development and to initiate stronger phasing controls. 0000/10 r�� Chairman Schroder, Members of the Board: People for Open Space is a citizen conservation organization concerned with sound regional land use planning and open space preservation in the nine-county Bay Area. It is our belief that while the proposed East County Area general plan draft is based on an appropriate overall goal of preserving agricultural operations in the plan area, the policies identified in the plan -itself will not be adequate to carry out the plan's goals. We believe that the type of development permitted under the plan's policies will ultimately lead to the problems now so evident in Santa Clara County, parts of Sonoma County, and other areas in the Bay region. In addition, the proposed plan is contrary to the compact growth/open space preservation goals of the ABAG Regional Plan, approved by all of the Association's member governments in 1970. We believe that in the long run, the permissive, low-density development policies of the proposed plan will not only compromise all of the agricultural preservation goals, but will create substantial economic and fiscal problems with the resulting development and will in the near future forclose options of future development and conservation. Inconsistencies in the proposed plan The following are inconsistencies which we feel undermine many of the sound agricultural and development goals of the plan: pg. 6 A. "Preserve designated prime agricultural lands. . ." "Encourage and maintain the integrity of viable agricultural lands" "Provide for subdivision of agricultural land to an extent compatible with surrounding agricultural uses and zoning" While we understand the intention of the "allow subdivision" provision, we feel that it is ultimately incompatible with the first' two policies. The ambivalence of the plan's approach on this is an open invitation to continue the lot splitting/assessment rise/decreased agricultural viability cycle, both in how those in the real estate . market and those in practicing agriculture may interpret it. In addition, such a general plan approach as evidenced in the present draft provides no real guidance to staff or the planning commission, or to citizens generally. We would recommend removal of the "subdivision" policy from the draft. pgs. 1,45 B. "To provide for the maintenance and viability of the agricultural community" Zoning implementation to be mainly 10-acre and down to 5-acre zones The role of parcel size allowed by zoning in maintaining ag- ricultural viability is not clearly understood. It is most likely that large parcel zoning by itself will not suffice to ensure a high level of economic viability for agricultural operations. It is also unclear exactly what parcel sizes are required for successful farms. However, it is very clear that public policy which allows land splits 000011-0 ' - 2 - into, and residential development on, 5- and 10-acre parcel sizes has made a committment to urbanize -- or force urbanization of -- those lands in the not-so-distant future: small parcel zoning is not consistent with agricultural preservation goals, as the experience of the South Santa Clara Valley and other areas has borne out. Specifically, we feel that' small parcel agricultural zoning is a signal to real estate investors and others of eventual development intentions, or at least uncertainty. Even in an operating agricultural area, subdivision leads to increased assessments, and to difficulties in assembling an effectively productive number of parcels for lease or purchase, especially for entry-level farmers. Tremendous pressures are thereby created for much smaller subdivisions -- first through exception, later as a rule -- when the 20-acre "threshold" is broken. Ten-acre zoning, to say nothing of five-acre zoning, is an action that seems to always speak louder tha sincere agricultural preservation policy. We recommend changes in these designations as mentioned below. pg. 14 C. "Most of the Ag.-Res. area should not be required for development.." ". .parcels as small as five acres (may be permitted) . ." Almost half of the planning area is in the "agricultural-residential" zone. To encourage the type of lot split process that almost everyone involved seems to feel is now such a problem in this 55,000 acre area is to us an inappropriate recommendation. It is inevitable that, under the proposed plan's policies, in ten or fifteen years this area will be a place where people will say, "I wish they had left us the option in 1977". The 5-acre zoning provision seems to stem from a feeling that since the area is of "lower agricultural value", the selling off of occasional lots should be allowed. On an individual parcel basis there may be some sense to this, but the sum total of all of these individually rational decisions will end up being irrational to the interests of the county as a whole. The social "need" for five-acre lots in this area does not to us seem to justify the gradual but certain compromising of agricultural uses that will result if such splits are allowed as a matter of policy. Our recommendations below apply here. D. Time frame of plan relative to goals The 5-year time frame of the plan as stated by those involved in its preparation seems inconsistent not only with the types of policies and resulting implementing actions it recommends, but also with the understanding of general plans given in the County's conformance inter- pretation guidelines. In addition, this short time frame is inadequate as a basis for performing a thorough analysis of the long term economic impacts of the plan's policies. E. Lack of buffer between Brentwood and agricultural "core" The only strong stand the proposed plan makes for agriculture is in the 'bore" area around Brentwood. Yet Brentwood is anticipating a very high rate of growth, and quite possibly will attempt to expand 0000110 3 - beyond the "planned community boundaries of the proposed plan. To call for the long-term preservation of "viable" agriculture in such a situation, when no other protection than zoning is given seems unrealistic. If the plan is serious about the "agricultural core" designation then it should also call for specialized, long- term Williamson Act contracts, the mandatory dedication by developers of an open space buffer, and in particular should employ 20-acre zoning with strict guidelines for development on non-conforming parcels. F. "Planned community" policies do not provide an adequate implementation of stated goals The plan policies call for the channeling of urban development into "growth centers" with 'balanced" land uses, yet the area over which development is allowed makes difficult the provision of commercial and community facilities in areas outside Brentwood; the low density of the proposed new development will have problems supporting such services. In addition, the plan calls for "orderly and contiguous" growth, especially in the Oakley area, but has no implementation mechanism for ensuring that type of growth. Strong phasing controls such as residential growth allocation systems, clear LAFCo guidelines, and definite service requirements will be needed to achieve the plan's goals. Summary of Recommendations Based on our interpretation of the plan, the background reports, the EIR and our experience in other counties of the Bay Area, we would suggest the following: 1."Ag. Core" • Rezone to 20-acre minimums, and develop a buffer plan for protecting the area from urbanization. . If necessary, institute a moratorium on subdivisions and building permits while such buffer plans are being prepared. • Investigate methods such as long-term application of Williamson Act provisions (20 and 50 year contracts), strict development guidelines for non-conforming parcels, and detachment from urban-serving tax districts. 2."Ag. Resid.": • Re-designate area as "extensive agriculture", and use very large parcel zoning (e.g. , 100 acres) as the basic land use control tool. Develop strict guidelines for non-conforming parcels. 3."Planned Comm." • Strengthen the goal of this section to call for only compact and contiguous growth, and institute phasing controls required to ensure this type of development. 0000A 0 - 4 - • To achieve "balanced" community goal, consider regulatory measures to encourage a more positive job/housing balance. • Before deciding on the type and extent of growth allowed under the "planned community" designation, undertake a thorough cost-revenue study to assess the long-term fiscal responsibility to the County of the type of development called for in the plan. • Decrease the amount of land in the "planned comm- unity"area to levels more consistent with anticipated growth; place these excluded lands in the "ag. core" or "extensive agriculture" categories. Conclusion The proposed East County Area General Plan is not a plan for today; it is an invitation to continue the inefficient excesses of 1950's-style urban development. A certain amount of growth in the area is anticipated: this should be planned for accomodation in existing urban areas at designated, compact densities that can be serviced effectively. The agricultural lands around these areas will need to be protected in a firm, definite way: mixing agric- ulture and residences in the long run is simply*not workable, no matter how well intended. We believe that successful land use planning in the East County will depend on the use of these two concepts -- unambivalent agricultural preservation and compact urban growth. We hope the Board of Supervisors will consider our suggestions for achieving such a plan. Thank you. 000W.p Addenda 1. Santa Clara County; South Valley rezoning In early 1977, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors considered a rezoning of 58,000 acres in the areas -around Morgan Hill and Gilroy to a "variable-density" zone. This zone would have continued the existing policy of allowing 2.5 acre lot splits, with some minor restrictions. The zoning proposal had been developed by an advisory committee and the county planning commission after about three years of work. After considering the economic and environmental impacts of the proposed zone, the Board in March of 1977 instituted a moratorium on all building and subdivisions. On October 31st, and with very strong local opposition, the. Board voted 3-2 to rezone the entire 58,000 acres to 20- and 40-acre parcel sizes. This very important turnaround was based on the desire of the Board majority to channel development into urban areas and to institute land use controls which could serve as the basis for a strong program of agricultural preservation. it was recognized that the long-term committment that would have followed from approving the 1-10 acre "variable density" zoning would not only foreclose future options, but would have eventually entailed a highly unserviceable, but essentially urban, pattern of development. The 20- and 40-acre zoning was felt to be the best means of establishing the policy direction and land use controls necessary to avoid these problems. 2. Consideration of economic impact of POS recommendations Supervisor Schroder requested a statement as to our consideration of economic impacts of our recommendations. We interpret this in two ways. First, our recommendations were based on experience with other areas where low-density development has been permitted, especially in the South Santa Clara Valley. In this respect, we believe that the economic impact of the proposed plan without our recommendations is probably large and negative to the County. However, surprisingly neither the plan no;. the EIR has made an attempt to quantify these impacts, based on the proposed policies. Secondly,we understand the question to pertain to the impact of the plan with our recommendations. While we have not made a study of these, we believe that in terms of fiscal impacts on the County, our proposals would be beneficial. This is primarily based on experience. As for the impact on individuals and economic enterprises in area, we believe the net value of our development/ conservation proposals will be equal to or greater than those proposed in the plan. The impact of not allowing development in agricultural areas will possibly create economic hardship on an occasional individual basis. These problems, however, should be treated in a positive way that does not merely continue the source of the land use problem and postpone its reckoning day. It is quite possible that a thorough approach to our agricultural preservation recommendations would entail some cost to taxing districts through de-annexation, as well as some cost to the County through Williamson Act contracts or other agricultural assistance programs, such as marketing assistance. 3. Selected plan EIR references (see attached sheets) -UUOU"U PART THREE OF ADDENDA TO POS STATEMENT ON EAST COUNTY AREA GENERAL PLAN The following are selected portions of the EIR prepared on the East County Area General Plan. They are all taken from part II of the EIR and are presented primarily to illustrate comments made in the POS statement. II. Environmental Impact Analysis A. The Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action 1. Viability of Agriculture If the prime agricultural land in the East County is to be retained for commercial agriculture, the County must take positive steps to create preserves that can withstand development pressure. The proposed Area Plan recommends the creation of a 14,533 acre "Agriculture Core". It should be stressed that adoption of this recommendation will not ensure the survival of commercial agricul- ture in East County, and it does not give any special consider-ation to agricultural lands which fall outside of the "Agriculture Core". It can be considered a positive step towaM control o t e pa f urban development in the Planning Area. However, if the plan is to achieve its stated objective of retaining commercial agriculture, t e mum allowable parcel size in the Agriculture Core must be increased. The proposed plan must also be given consideration by taxing agencies and the Assessor (e.g. Agricultural lands are taxed to support BART). If further subdivision of land in the Agriculture Core is discouraged, if urban growth is directed into the Planned Communities_, and if land in the Agriculture Core is taxed on the basis of its agricultural productivity, the viability of commercial agriculture will be greatly enhanced. 47 000040 2. Uneconomical Parcel Size and the Cost of Operations One of the problems that farmers in the East County area face is the small size of parcels, particularly-in the East Contra Costa County Irrigation District, where 64 percent of all parcels and 23 percent of the total acreage are in parcels of less than 10 acres in size. In the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District 42 percent of all parcels and 6 percent of the total acreage are in parcels less than 10 acres in size. Where parcels are of 10 acres or less, it is more expensive to farm the land because of the higher cost of moving the farm equipment from parcel to parcel and the limitation of the manner in which insecticides and fertilizer may be distributed. In the case of row crops where mechanical harvesting is generally carried out, a small parcel cannot support the cost of using the machinery. It should also be recognized that the relatively small minimum parcel size whtcfiis- proposed by the plan encourages the continued growth of residential uses in commercial agriculture areas. Such uses have a low tolerance for one anot er. For example, pesticides, odor and flies common to livestock operations are objectionable to adjoining residences. Con- versely, the presence of nearby residential uses makes it more difficult for farmers and ranchers to carry out their agricultural operations. Based on the preceeding considerations it is apparent that the continuing fragmentation of parcel size will have a decidedly negative impact on the viability ot agricu ture. Fn—this regard, the proposed an tails to recommend a minimum parcel sizwhich will encourage the retention of agricultural uses. 3. Absence of Guidelines in Agriculture Residential The proposed plan does not establish any criteria or guidelines for evaluating the appropriateness of subdivision applications in areas designated "Agriculture Residential'. Premature development of outlying portions of the "Agriculture Residential" area could result in scattered unplanned, inefficient and potentially hazardous velo - _Tg�at. For example, the southwest portion of the Planning Area is exposed to extreme wildfire hazard during the late summer and early fall. According to the safety element, major developments should not be approved if fire fighting services are not available or are not adequate for the area. Hopefully, consideration of fire hazards would also be accorded to smaller projects. Other factors which should be considered include compatibility with surrounding land use, wildlife resources, agricultural capability of soils, mineral resources, flood hazards, slope stability problems, suitability for septic tank leech fields, growth inducing factors, adequacy of public facilities (e.g. 6. Sewage Disposal and `water Facilities e creation of many residential lots served b tic tanks and wells y pose a threat to the public health. Depe on•site conditions, it can be extremely difficult on a lot-split it lot-split basis to • properly locate these facilities so that they do not interfere with one another, even on a 5 acre parcel. Groundwater contamination could result from such practices. Additionally, failure of a septic system could result in contamination of surface water. The East/Central Contra Costa County Wastewater Management Program is a comprehensive review of wastewater service for the eastern one-third of the county, including the Planning Area. The program entails improvement to sewage plants within the area to adequately treat municipal waste, to protect the quality of the receiving waters (Sacramento-San Joaquin rivers), to consolidate the sub-regional facilities, and to expand population service. 50 Even though these proposed improvements would substantially increase the existing systems ability to improve quality of treatment and to serve new growth, the design capacity of the new system would not, in general serve the ona provi a or b the land use P anned areas. !n the ac ey-Sand Hill area, for example, the capacity of the syste as proposed can be fully utilized4by development located north of the Contra Costa Canal and east of Empire Road. Therefore, it appears warranted to consider phased development in a contiguous manner to assure that the system capacity is not overextended through 1990. (51) 15. Economics The continued population growth in the East County will require a variety of community services and natural resources. The added burden on the Sheriff's Department, the fire districts, educational servies, County administration, maintenance services of storm sewers, street lighting, street cleaning, provision of water, flood control protection, sewage treatment, maintenance of roads, etc. represent a cost to the community. Whether the cost would be covered by the revenue produced by the residents through sales and property tax cannot be determined without an extensive economic analysis. The plan provides for a considerable increase in the area designated for residential use, enough to accommodate a fourfold increase in the current population. Several factors suggest that the local job base will not increase enough to support this large increase in population. There are likely to be future constraints on energy and water resources for industry in the area. The study area does not.have the secondary services necessary for manufacturing to locate here. New industry expected to establish in the Antioch-Pittsburg area is not labor intensive and the new jobs could be expected to be largely filled by the unemployed labor force in the Antioch-Pittsburg area. Therefore, the employment need of the study area will have to be i met by the job market in Stockton, west and central county, Solano County and San Francisco. The plan then is essentially a suburban based one where residents will have to commute long distances to work. This has several implications. increased traffic will deteriorate air quality which could threaten agricultural nrndutjixL _ aP�s will have toassumea considerable tax burden to support community services. Urban sprawl is en" coura ed. Ih-e rural character of the East County area as an agricultural service center will be irrevoca y ._changed; 000Oil Q 55 0 4. Phase Development in the Oakley Brentwood Planned Communities This alternative assumes there would be some kind of time phasing of development at specified densities. Within the Oakley-Sandhill and Brentwood communities, the proposed plan could accommodate more than 3 times the existing population. This far exceeds the anticipated 1990 population for this area. If the Plan provided criteria for phasing development, it could have the effect of directing compact growth, infilling of existing nelghborhoods and phasing development more consistently with "water and sewer capacities. Under this alternative, the boundary of a Planned Community might not be altered but certain portions of the Planned Community would not be "slated" for development in the near future. Rather, they would assume an interim agricultural status. S. Place Foothill Areas in Large Parcel Major Open Space Classification This alternative would change much of the area west and south of the Agriculture Core from Agriculture Residential at S acre minimum to open space at a larger parcel size. This would more accurately reflect existing use of the area as rangeland and the existing large parcel sizes (100 acres plus). Due to lack of roads, steep slopes and distance from urban services, the area is not suited for small parcel sizes and residential uses, implied by the term Agriculture Residen- tial. 63 6, Revise Proposed General Plan Land Use Map Revise the land use map to include all prime soils(and perhaps other currently productive Class III or IV soils) in the Agriculture Core and all flood prone lands to the 10 foot contour line in Agriculture Recreation. This would tend to maximize preservation of existing agricultural activities which lie within the proposed Agriculture Residential category and place most of the area of the 100 year flood plain in larger parcel size. 7. Balance Residential Use with Anticipated Employment Opportunities Under this alternative, the acreage within planned communities designated for residential uses would be in scale with the local employment base and therefore reduced considerably from the proposed plan. The proposed area outlined for residential use can accommodate many more persons than the an iapa a emp oyment an suppor tease cT11is has the effect o con onin� a commuter based •-community and encouraging sprawl. This alternative would reduce traffic, noise, aemanos Tor services and adverse impacts on air quality and energy resources by providing for less growth (reducing areas outlined for residential use). 8. Energy Alternatives Long commutes are not energy efficient, and the single family home is the least energy efficient housing type. The plan could encourage the eventual establishment of a comprehensive public transit system through its land use and circulation planning. The plan could also stress the importance of incorporating energy-mitigation measures in project design and construction practices. For example, the plan could encourage multiple family developments in the East County Planning Area (see the Contra Costa County Energy Study for detailed consideration of energy conservation measures). 64 U0pp:x Q J ,+ DISTRICT OFFICES • BRENTWOOD EL CENTRO PHOENIX _ I The Company o;G,F - --- Fl11`clJ7 70-11, STAR LA MAIN MAIN OFFICE-PO. DRAWER 1731•SALINAS. CALIFORNIA 93901 AREA CODE 408 "-" Salinas, California TELEPHONE SALINAS. 424-7,633 December 15, 1977 L. D. PHONE SALINAS. 424.6711 RECEIVED D E C %9 1977 J. R. OLSSON Mr. Warren Bogges CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Board of Supervisors q/ ONT A CO. v B ......_........ . .. P. 0. Box 951 Martinez, California 94553 Dear Mr. Bogges: Re: East Contra Costa General Plan Vs. Brentwood Plan At your December 6th meeting we were represented by Mr. ,Richard :fall , our attorney, and Mr. Gordon Chong, our land planner. They presented some of our points, but I thought it would be wise to add some additional features. It was noticeable at your meeting that the people making statements against the proposed Contra Costa Plan were all people who would be adversely affected if the plan is implemented. Obviously, there should be some people that the plan would benefit, and it was noticeable that they did not speak up in behalf of the plan. Why? The two members of the Commission that did speak obviously were there to represent the work they did on the Commission although they did dislike the Brent- wood City Plan. Some thought should be given to the drainage of the farm land and a definite plan to handle Brentwood City storm drain water. I do not find this problem covered in the East Contra Costa Plan and there is very little in the Brentwood Plan to work with this problem. Another point which I feel is well to bring up is the noticeable trend toward pre- serving agricultural land and maintaining its production in its present kind and volume is impossible. He have farmed in the Brentwood area for approximately 50 years and have seen changes brought about by the trends and eating habits, the opening of new districts of production and the wearing out of the productivity of the soil . Mainly, however, the changes are of an economic nature where it no longer was practical to farm expensive vegetable and tree fruits in the area. At one time we were the biggest employer in the Brentwood area with our green tomato packing shed, melon and fruit packing deals and at this time '� we farmed • 4r GIVE y�►j �MOAtO .1 UNI!(D n F over 2,000 acres in the Brentwood area. The green tomato shipping deal lasted for about 30 years, but was finally one that had to be discontinued due to eco- nomic reasons such as new seed varieties, virus disease, new production districts, inability to use insecticides, high cost of labor, wrapping and packing costs. We saw the same in the apricot and tree fruit deals in the Brentwood area and eventually closed down this operation. We saw the same happening in the honeydew deal where as time passed the ground produced a lesser quality melon as compared to the newer production districts. More recently the crop that was tried in Brentwood was lettuce. This bloomed into a rather large amount of acreage during the fall seasons, but as other districts proved their ability to produce cheaper and better quality crops of lettuce than Brentwood, the deal weaned from a high of approximately 3,500 acres in the late 60's to 700 acres this last year. I am attempting to show that the effort to maintain large scale farming operations in the Brentwood area is dreaming in the past. The plans that are talked about of maintaining agriculture in the area have to be one ones of economic kind and the economics of agriculture next to an urban area such as are seen in East Contra Costa County are a thing of the past. Small plots and small acreages (50 acres is con- sidered small ) are impossible to farm effectively and our participation in farming in the Brentwood area is presently down to approximately 600 acres. We own these acres and are farming them, but we are not leasing large amounts outside acreages as we did in the past because we do not find it economically sound to farm specialty crops in the area. I shall attend your January meeting and we will expand further on the points that I have made in defense of our position, and that is that the Brentwood area is one of the kind that allows us to have the freedom of choice to be annexed by the City or farm. The Brentwood Plan gives us this leeway and we are not regimented to the use of our land by a governmental body who might not understand the conditions that exist because it is not farm orientated. Thank you for your attention. Very truly yours, THEEaGAARIN COMPANY w 6 A'Z�G4j% William 0. Garin WOG:dz 0000^0 December 11, 1977 RECEIVED DEC 14 1977 Mr. Warren N. Boggess, Chairman Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors J. R. OLSSON LB LERK B RD OF SUPERVISORS 651 Pine St. T OSTA CO. Martinez, Calif. �� ._Deputy Dear Sir: It is gratifying to find the County Planning Department and the Boardoof Supervisors actively concerned about theorderly devel- opment of the eastern part of the county, particularly with regard to preserving the integrity of the communities and protecting the agricultural and recreational lands. I am concerned about the manner in which the county grows. I would like to see urban growth contained within the existing cities until they are fully developed. The purpose of this would be to retain the distinguishing characteristics of each city, and to facilitate service delivery to these cities. Some excellent measures for implementing the proposed general plan are listed in the plan outline; I especially like the 20-acre per parcel limit suggested for the agricultural-recreational areas. It would seem that this same 20-acre zoning might be applied with ad- vantage to the agricultural core. This measure, I believe, would help to inhibit further subdividing of these areas, and thus protect them for future agricultural use. Very truly yours, `ems 24 Ruth Eleckfessel 992 Jewett Ave. Pittsburg, Calif. l" 00001 0 Jb�`"f CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Inter- Office Memo Date: December 14, 1977 To: Mary Dunten, Public Information Officer From: Clerk of the Board Subject: By Ronda Amdahl, Deputy As recommended by Supervisor E. H. Hasseltine, we request that you send a press release to the Brentwood News and Antioch Daily Ledger advising that the continued hearing on the amendment to the County General Plan for the East County area will be held on Monday, January 23, 1978 at 7 :30 p.m. in the Board Chambers. ra CC: Director of Planning County Counsel Supervisor Hasseltine 0000, 0 In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California December 13 , 19 22- In ZIn the Matter of Hearing on a Proposed Amendment to the County General Plan for the East County Area. The Board on December 6, 1977 having continued to this day the hearing on a proposed amendment to the County General Plan for the East County area to determine an appropriate time to receive further testimony; and The Board members having discussed the matter, IT IS ORDERED that the aforesaid hearing is CONTINUED to Monday, January 23, 1978 at 7:30 p.m. PASSED by the Board on December 13, 1977. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of CC:: Director of Planning Supervisors affixed this 13th day of December 19 77 OLSSON, Clerk By 1 V-) l�;C" Deputy Clerk tY Ronda Amdahl H-24 4/77 15m • • RECEIVED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY r.c 7 PLANNING DEPARTMENT L /-'z 1977 J. R. OLSSaN _ CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA TA CO. B pe TO: Board of Supervisorsn DATE: December 9, 1977 FROM: Anthony A. Dehaesus SUBJECT: Hearing on General Plan Director of Plannin Amendment for East County Area General Plan Pursuant to instructions of the Board on December 6, 1977, we have made arrangements with the Clerk of the Board to hold the second public hearing on the East County Area General Plan on the evening of Monday, January 23, 1978, at 7:30 p.m., in the Board chambers. It is our understanding that the Clerk of the Board will provide appro- priate notice to all persons notified of the first hearing and those additional persons who may have attended that hearing. AAD/cad 0�L(�().�aF All wn > 0a .. _ r - _.i - .. � .._., ,.�-+aa,..r�..+.+.- � ti...ca#•t.+.asv.,'rH.w}sx.+y.*cxnw.>j�. TriMpce Martion BareAu on the rtorth'to,Syron az;&Cii tt t_ f�s[.ttdva a:pl torr Court Foreiiay on the south _t the j :_,Brentwood, a'�city• of-,one i squaM Mile-and 3,700-residents Brentwood sib;ln the-;rniddie - fi ado z sw1' t of,-the area-surrirtinded a0.thOcr, T Pthasides by Primericultrrt�ai'>kl ' ezn Wdos.#be`, annexation. of 26 s .same �rqutuce",#}ll making room fora, CauntyPlanning Director Aa- ; r .P4P"a a o 25,00{l _bony Dehaesus said his stall a $s3_T6is. -in conflict.with ow" -was not.=preFwrl to may.vchiell>isi an eflol't ori- the city's. g0"Mal t lbew' � - cause:the plan l►�id fust be04 " x swve''pcime aricilti►r ati lend,' =r, is "onsldetritg a' general Ota❑ ceived and gad nc�ty to- `} :- �e city to,aft,Wtiani�rte ts�9Q?liit�e f i �p1�y,r _ ,ct ,a -- James'P. Kenny .-hearing w �3ooica.uPKw tbe,land in the Hretit pongihie it,will be A nigh �' LM�sc rs WW i �Eood'area as "the breadbasket Ing,in mid-January. � ardts as in A]Gk- of,tire,ccwnty, and if we disturbatk ! 5 By that, timeDula, us ,wilt his�:stiff Wbave hmUn ' YU •cmiter with L th±e city'a;`Stiff. =sprrcot orchards are gone forev- S#iMANA&SVoch'of James_Buell. Brentwood manager, told' the super:viaorrs McKenny made his statement at that at the next hearing-he-wiu .resd�:hid; �i'hearing the supervisors held : make a more complete jivsen acre;plaltk pn.p amendments to the tation of the citys poaitbn ',:'4 adiide to _ Jras+e : �jqi2nera pian for the East County 9. .._area extending from the river Heinz=Faaielref, # 'r1' -' 0 • In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California December 6 , 1977 In the Matter of Hearing on Proposed Amendment to the County General Plan for the East County Area. The Board on October 25, 1977 having fixed this date for hearing on the Planning Commission recommendation with respect to the proposed amendment to the County General Plan for the East County area; and Mr. A. A. Dehaesus , Director of Planning, having advised that an Environmental Impact Report was considered by the Planning Commission during its deliberations and found to have been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State guidelines; and Mr. Dehaesus having further advised that the City of Brentwood recently adopted a revised General Plan which was not considered at the Planning Commission hearings and that should the Board desire to continue this hearing it would provide the Commission and staff an opportunity to review the City's plan and submit a report and recommendations thereon; and Mr. Heinz Fenichel, Assistant Director of Planning, having briefly described the goals and objectives of the proposed General Plan revision; and The Board Chairman having opened the hearing and all persons present having been given an opportunity to be heard with respect to the proposal; and The Board members having discussed the matter and having expressed the opinion that it would be desirable to continue the hearing to a night meeting, IT IS ORDERED that the aforesaid hearing is CONTINUED to December 13, 1977 to determine an appropriate time to receive further testimony. PASSED by the Board on December 6, 1977. 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of CC: Director of Planning Supervisors affixed this 6th day of December 1977 J. R. OLSSON, Clerk By , Deputy Clerk Vera Nelson 0000.1.0 H-24 4/77 15m 0 • Hearing on Proposed Amendment to the County General Plan for the East County Area held December 6, 1977 The following persons spoke: Mr. William N. Craig, Jr. , representing Mrs. Mary Faye Lauritzen and Mr. Frank H. Miller; Mr. Thomas W. Olsson, representing Mr. Mark Hull; Mr. Henry Hampton, 735 Pippo Avenue, Brentwood; Mr. Jack Hernandez, Eastern Contra Costa Board of Realtors; Ms. Joanne Dean, Route 1, Brentwood; Mr. Larry Orman, Project Coordinator, People for Open Space; Mr. Charles Wofford, 5511 Pamplona Court, Concord; Mr. Tino Bacchini, Concord Avenue, Brentwood; Mr. James Buell, City Manager of Brentwood; Mr. Richard Wall, attorney representing Mr. William 0. Garin; Mr. Fred J. Greenlaw, Eureka Avenue, Brentwood. 00oo,l 0 RECEIVED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEC 6 1977 PLANNING DEPARTMENT J. R. OLSSON CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ONTRA '•.TA CO. B 9rt TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: December 6, 1977 FROM: Anthony A. Dehaesu SUBJECT: East County Area General Plan Director of Plannin Since the approval of the East County Area General Plan by the County Planning Commission on July 28, 1977, three requests for changes in the General Plan in the Big Break area have been submitted to the Planning Department. The first is a request to change 277 acres from Industrial and Agriculture- Residential designations to a designation which would be appropriate for recreational uses including a golf course, tennis courts and clubhouse (see attached letter from DalPorto dated November 3, 1977). The applicant has requested a land use permit under the existing Light Industrial zoning district to establish these uses, and indicates that future development could include a marina and residential uses. The second request is a letter from the President of Big Break Nlnrina requesting that the existing recreational and residential uses at the site be recognized when future planning and zoning decisions are considered in this area. Big Break Marina is located at the end of Big Break Road and comprises 32 acres, 16 of which consist of water. There presently exist 334 berths, boat repair facilities, restaurant and bar, and a mobilehome park on the site. The General Plan approved by the Planning Commission shows the site for Agriculture-Residential uses. The third request concerns the Miller property; 79 acres presently in agricultural use on the east side of Big Break Road. The original draft proposal of the General Plan Review Committee designated this property for heavy industrial uses (as it did the entire Big Break area). In a letter dated June 21, 1977, Mr. Miller and also Nis. Lauritzen (a property owner to the north) opposed the Industrial designation of their land and requested that the Commission designate it for Agriculture-Residential uses. At their request the Planning Commission changed the mainland area to Agriculture-Residential, showed the water area as "water," and designated the island in Big Break as Recreation. Subsequently, Mr. Miller informed the Planning Department staff that he desired his property changed back to an industrial designation in the General Plan. ANALYSIS The General Plan approved by the Planning Commission designates approximately 550 acres in the Big Break area for Industry. This includes the DuPont property, a portion of the Dal Porto property, and a few smaller parcels south of the Miller property (see attached map). While this represents a considerable reduction industrially designated land area from the original General Plan CommittU-00040 Board of Supervisors -2- December 6, 1977 proposal, only 20% of this land area is presently in industrial use — the DuPont Plant on Bridgehead Road. The rest of the land is currently used for agriculture or water oriented recreation. The Miller, DalPorto and Big Break Marina properties are located outside the sewer service district, but inside the Oakley Water District (although not served at this time). Some of this property includes marshlands and soils which pose severe limitations for development. Also, portions of these properties lie within the 100 year flood plain. The Big Break area has been noted as having valuable recreational potential; both the State Delta Master Recreation Plan (September 1976) and the Delta Advisory Planning Council's (DAPC) Delta Action Plan recognize the aquatic and marshlands habitat of Big Break as a significant wildlife and recreation resource. During the public hearings on the General Plan before the Planning Commission, there was discussion as to the appropriate extent of Industry near Big Break, and it was felt that industrial uses would not be compatible with the recreational and wildlife habitat values which exist in this area. The DAPC Delta Action Plan states that "Industrial development should be clustered in appropriate areas and should not necessarily intrude...on identified significant habitat resource areas, particularly marshlands." In view of the recreational and wildlife value of the area, flood hazard, and severe limitations for buiding on some soils, an Agriculture-Recreation designa- tion would be the most appropriate designation for the DalPorto and Big Break Marina properties, as well as the entire Big Break shoreline extending from Bridgehead Road east to Jersey Island. It would reflect the marina uses which exist at Big Break now, and would protect these flood prone areas from inappropriate densities by setting a 20 acre parcel minimum. This is also consistent with the logic of the Agriculture-Recreation designation applied in the Delta Islands to the east. it should be noted that the Agriculture-Recreation designation does not permit residential developments in association with recreation uses. Staff considers this restriction appropriate in the Big Break area, since it is outside the Planned Communities delineated in the General Plan and is not likely to be served by water or sewer in the near future. The Agriculture-Recreation designation could accommodate the recreation uses proposed on the DalPorto property and would allow an expansion of marina uses at Big Break Marina. The major portion of the Miller property is located within the 100 year flood plain, consists of soils not appropriate for development, and also borders on marshland. For these reasons the northerly portion of the 14iller property is not appropriate for an Industrial designation. However, the southerly portion of this property is situated between areas which are presently shown for industry and has good access to the railroad. Staff recommends that the southerly portion of the Miller property be shown for Industry and that the northerly portion be shown for Agriculture-Recreation, recognizing the development constraints which exist and the importance of providing a buffer between future industrial uses near the railroad and the marshland habitat at the shoreline. 000040 Board of Supervisors -3- December 6, 1977 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors consider the following changes in the Land Use Element of the East County Area General Plan (see attached map): 1. Change the DalPorto property from Industry and Agriculture-Residential to Agriculture-Recreation. 2. Change the Big Break Marina property from Agriculture-Residential to Agriculture-Recreation, with the understanding that no expansion of the existing mobilehome park use be permitted. 3. Show the shoreline/marshland areas, including the marinas at Bridgehead Road and the shoreline east to Jersey Island, as Agriculture-Recreation. 4. Show the northerly portion of the Miller property as Agriculture-Recreation, and the southerly portion of the Miller property as Industry. AAD:blh 12/6/77 t Y . S' -L. M' t t . 1 { ham" { � - } N :f• { rY A y� til.:;{' / h n q` V e 4� f I 8 ! r n s3 •:ti 4 0 t; i y%�}!,:•}} a J .g n .( d \a / F tfr M a - f a` 1, �}. F•i: •.5 y: m -= a F tc J ,i � max- tib- �yC�.jy.1/y'.•� �'�•' .Q•: / U -xZ� ,0 4' ':•t.:•Q.:..;:��lam'. v r ':.V.':• AY• Y 1: 37 tlg;t Ail%tlG \��••'•.�•. y n 0 00 317153 t!3l80d "'� },<•?=�''' ate �.�/ F t ''�'• :}'• :-:';•i:;: :•i:: X:. a .aaN ti u : a •: /r pa •' i P 4 l•'� 1. n ` N1��''�f(` v::{:{fia?I;a;[,t;:;? JLfL., .. OV 06'ZS£ •j:S.;} •:.� Y1{S.��iij:r�!,+.;a ...... { HJ X. Fn ul ♦\i�\; �' '� a 0.Z :{ti::•:?{-:•�':Y: [::}:: ,_. q r:a (a� •�y�� {:': ;Cj' t0'L - J •' 174q L tj;�i4�j'r h':Zw:�* ?�k w7:•yi�:, 1 •x ` � u v3nrti_ __,� � e I!•L;Ntr�y+fe '3n.•+;^ :� f G! y ?tm �tl h a } �y(v':•�.ii:'`i ':. N3S"0 r 'tl �On0. 31t ar l 18vt. t r F1 ttt �iyluta ( \. .�y j i .. - f;••{ •sY.,gat'?Y'<C,_ ''.: f:,uCYI �"'Sr G; r ir ♦+ \ }S�/,' f: �..•�'].4j � ai; ^03n3Z734 i.i W �� t:::: :•-'.£.=.tc�•ii.:•"..<v;C�'Jt,+eti:• r•�'T'�e � �V 'al } ,�1\ ,C„•"+s:i., ti. ! •`err..;.,; 0 Q V'61 Z ! q as + •�� U.r'{L.`: •'�4- 'r:'%n. •c ?i�'•' '•�- 01S.NOr fr /G p( 3N ` {{11 S J•�v:.^H:•:.+�ir � ywwy F;S''�.• .�i�.H;;t^r.� �—�—� U -� �MA 3:tY CL f 11 (.'�� ii.'a I t't,t`;«S':Y,-.'yjn`•'�f:.' :;i� t .t .1� •t I� •.i!•�ti �tf"i�:"Sa"��yi::.i: 1''ri�: zf .y 'i n .... F:r•L, ' -'` 3Uorba •.;tt.-. k:...�f:_u??,y.t_:�,: ;:.",-_�{'>�ks"•tsK. c� +r { j: r 'JIB .7 tr t• AS :V'd t•1 krl, 'i t LL its :i � Otl 88'bl in tM'. 111 r r• •_ Y7~— � E ' i s _ - - ,� ,7 rt•of� i. n` }:{�1 t }•} u , ��i AIN X K 4 Y / --------------- • 1.1yf 646 � � •:Y:•::•:;::':::{'I:'••:•:%::•:;:�:•. Q �'' /� 44 u 6 •(a•\ /�4/9 fJ •L;, :.. :1........ to � Q N _ a as�c��.�d/ �� :;X;}:f�::••S••il Lai ul UJ IAJ W C':1 317153 143180d t% U Ce u �a t\ ,l n A! // [o�j� Q• cc fisc o\ N3zi:anv-, a Z o IL 13 UJ ff..�. In ca NJ .-- Pl3Al& `\ _ O .-.k�T•:;?'yob.} t..e,t / _. r r �ti\t \\ \ � •tom%.r'r'T•i•�{��tia''„� .r� �; . ..:• � c Nn gn �1 _ f 7C• �f'r �(S:� Q si�3tSif -�.•�� \,` �.,` \\ •�, i- � �;1 J•i�� 'ri :;��•, � J'aviif,✓�j• t;1 - � O 't\ \ �` \\ r.;i'��:k{��M/� c t r ti Ir! !h•>�,ft k� � 7 • � \ W'' ti y!.-l,'.'r YI -is%_=;' •�^1'�"(., 1 /� Al 1 .� .' :St;.• }�';.,.h '. .Y..y ;; ( )I 3E70/iyB 00f1Nd :::\z.�C•t•_`:: _`1`iL�'•c'�j '.,�� t x,1I r. � y, ) � - r�+iii �. _ ___..= _c= J. ✓ )r 1 _ . - �. ;v ••I trs�;vl 17S i. r 7b SZv1-r-�t:tNl _ -J - 1 S '- 00 GERALD JSFFRY, D.D.S. INC. RE ETVE� ORTHODONTICS 1205 A Street, Antioch, California 94509 Phone (415) 757-9100 O F C G 1077 CLERK BOARD OP SUPERVISORS CONT TA Co.Me December 5, 1977 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Martinez, Ca. Gentlemen: Regarding the change in the General Plan for Eastern Contra Costa County, may we request that future meetings on the General Plan changes be held in Eastern Contra Costa County, at a time other than 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, so that the general working population may attend and give input to changes in the Plan. Sincerely, Gerald J. Jeffr9', D. Rt. 1, Box 123-I Oakley, CA 94561 GJJ/gs • • t`I RECEIVED November 103, 1977 DEC G 1977 J. R. OLSSON BOARD OF SUPERVISORS A CO. Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Contra. Costa County Planning Department To whom it may concern: It is my desire thet ..y Fro .erty at Bier Break remain industrially zonned.- In June of 1977 t was told Lhe.t by signlrq- the enclosed document I mould rcduce my )rc.f erty tax. I had r:a idea that ny pro;erty would be reduced from industrial doom to recrea— tional and residential. It is :shy desire to retain the i dustrial zone as it has been for the last f'_ y ,yS. Thank ycu, y r�JKj Frank H. Miller Enclosure WON s r� a ,r j'f�w�"�-z YY'`'r� "fig �,�';�"" rE .. or E ,,,,-.., :X x1 r RECEIVED � } � :i d fi by 4y,h,S%.1 Jpe `� fK�� 2 1977 �� J R ORSSON t " VIS �� { ( ��1` q t �� CLERK=BOARD:OF SUPERVISORS_ ' ' f �� Jai ism c/� L;CG l { l F- x r }� s`x �a �' 4 — - , - I � , I I 1," C& --- -,�,� -"', , : ��4,.-!1- � �. 6 �- _ 'r , ��. �- .,e:-,�-,.',' — , , "'- I ,--�- - ,�3 , . . ,� ( • w� r �s�x 1 V >'en I Itl / `L LI.Y�} l ea..,c ' {t✓ (/!ti'G ,�,- asrrr p, L".- - 1 1 , 1 a� «F a^r // lll/ ( g arm f'�+��- ., - - - � � � L' 1 J ' (• '' J �' f. s. ''��C�i if{'_ tl t. L V� ,�1 C� 4✓LC 1 L� ,Y-,Y��a E,,� a �''L5."°ifTx-M A. �ZL�. /f� i "��7, . �_ ' � - z " _� - . -.. � I—P1 ,' ,� I : ( I � I I - I � -,�'- - ��-Iji / ,t� vn Y �. . is .� '�� `�t` i �` :� -c.. �+.- 'fir "m4s �. ts� ,t 1( / ? rrL�. ? tiles ){ " t` '�C 'fG 1 �i.v ' r.11.1111 - , , , - ,�/�', �,,:, / �� y d . 4 � "'4^r� j -. ,, - � :�,t,t�jJ A {j _ , �-.� ` `�' _� ' tit C L�'-�L-W' ,��'� 1',..� �,,. f `t ']! ;- '�r.. ,1 Z.�. �, �. ► �� 1Gtli ��,�( .-� IV X71, i Lti-► .1 , , c , '' �.' �� 11 �L )L �(� '�`l ` �r G�i fR 4 ��t ��/Glt l 1 ' cF w q �/ / 'Gtt eft jir /��1. ,2 .'L' 11 `a L`�` C_� .�)L 1-C; r L f 7� , l7f >� it Gtr { 'c 4 r4 f f i 3 a '1 11 , )R:,.� y i (,,i ! 1 1'i( t „{'t,.`� 1 i 'YY3�Is� �C rf � " Y + ' La�t L 4; ' / . _ l Gf/t � y4 J) �� 7 . C_ n t Ili / \ y, r {� J f s t y 1 - t,$ c c 7*2 . , � - --� � -(".F- -4� e A ) , — A, - � -,;��,JJ j _ v, 4I �r f, �� r r J x ,. -/i� 'I\1 ,::�-?/,Wl- t -� �J/ � t 4 ., �h �.. �- . / <, , , -,-, I 1, . �,: ... � I ,. .. " -- F 777f z i �£ N k� bf Y-.'+.1'1 � 1J'� . s..,:Cv .. »: r � -� ,: ,.r T ,�, x s., �'t ' S r. �. . Ml ..amw.�nx., �t,.�.rf.«, .,±+ �- ..n> ...w ,-k-. .—... .MM.,ea 11 _ ...4 PLEASE LEAVE SLIP ON PODIUM OR HAND TO CLERK CONTRA &TA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERQSORS ITEM NUMBER: FULL NAME: ��1� � �C`' /i, ! DATE: STREET ADDRESS: - /� L� !; PHONE: CITY: REPRESENTING (FIRM( R ORGANIZATION, IF ANY) : COMMENTS: PLEASE LEAVE SLIP ON PODIUM OR HAND TO CLERK CONTRA &TA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPEROSORS ITEM NUMBER: FULL NAME: A fl % DATE: STREET ADDRESS: /� f - a e V I��f PHONE: /07 - 7X 6 7K I � CITY:�� REPRESENTING (FIRM OR ORGANIZATION, IF ANY) : COMMENTS: PLEASE LEAVE SLIP ON PODIUM OR HAND TO CLERK CONTRA ATA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPER&ORS ITEM NUMBER: FULL NAME: �� !sl -7f7�1 tG"' - DATE: Z . 7 7 STREET ADDRESS 6 . •/� 6C'�C! PHONE: t L7 / 7 , CITY: REPRESENTING (FIRM OR ORGANIZATION, IF ANY) : CO NTS: • PLEASE LE XTE SLIP ON PODIUM OR HAND CLERK Iqw CONTRA (ISTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ITEM NUMBER: FU),i .NAME: /)Ljoll'74-'N DATE: 1•.2 G'j - 7 7 STREET ADDRESS �`� /'t !✓•' i�,'L' �C '� � PH6NE: f7l%GJ CITY: REPRESENTING (FIRM OR ORGANIZATION, IF ANY) : COMMENTS• RECEIVED December b, 1977 USC 4�-` 1977 J. R. OL$WN Contra Costa County CLERK BOARD Of SUPERVISORS Board of Supervisors B oS�A CO Martinez, Ca. ell Re : Northwest corner Gateway Road and Piper Road Bethel Island, Ca. Contra Costa County Assessor's Parcel No. 029-050-014 Gentlemen: The subject property as outlined in red on the attached plat is currently zoned A-2 (Agriculture) , and contains 6.00 acres. The owner of the property, Mr. Mark Hull of Walnut Creek, would like to develop the property in the future on a commercial basis. There are existing commercial developments in the immediate vicinity of this site. This 6 acre property is of suffient size to develop commercial uses that will serve the future needs of the Bethel Island residents along with the increas- ing amount of recreation oriented visitors . The property also offers advantages over the existing "downtown" properties located on Bethel Island Road. The existing downtown area does not offer properties of this size and they are not con- ducive to allow adequate parking and easy access. In addition, the existing downtown area is primarily composed of restaurants, boat sales and repair yards, taverns, a cardroom, etc. We believe that the future family oriented shopping and goods and services facilities should be located outside of this area. On behalf of Mr. Hull, I request that the Board give consideration to this request to rezone the subject property to a commercial designation. Please advise me of the Board's decision. Sincerely, Thomas W. Olsson 2979 Ygnacio Valley Road Walnut Creek, Ca. 94598 938-7176 Attach: cc: Mr. Mark Hull TWO/rms ` SETHEL ISLAND -..•� ROACM a4. .:9 i'a ...•............................................................................. ;jn I r r r y 'u � a WUl (� .4k J ♦oo C :• M t0 V :L:•- N . 27t• •, y t�w •" •J 77 �: n • L !o rr CG Z� I �: .r W :• c"- it � �� •• N :>Ne:• 4¢ + ♦�'�::Iwo L � Z t waw cri O 4 to tJ _o cnt x m O / ct 12 cn O N W Q D O t7 7CJ i V a > f PIPER , •� C m v _ - A 0 ,r-� rn�r►.t,-v +ten - .. RECEIVED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY C LEO / 1977 PLANNING DEPARTMENT J. P Oi.SSON CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS /CONT COSTA CO. TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: November 30, 1977 FROM: Anthony A. Dehaes SUBJECT: East County Area Director of Planni General Plan The attached let ers are being forwarded to you as a part of the East County Area General Plan package, which is to be considered by your Board in public hearing on December 6, 1977. These letters were received subsequent to the action of the Planning Commission recommending adoption of the proposed East County General Plan. The letters are from: 1. Mr. Robert A. DalPorto and Marion Jeanne Michelotti 2. Bennie T. Best, President Big Break Marina Inc. We will be prepared to discuss these requests at the December 6th public hearing on the General Plan Amendment. AAD/cad Attachments ...•11..11.. DT DI G BRLA ��INA, Rt. 1 [lox 63AINC.ii . !11611 2 I 3Z �'�+ Oakley,Calif.94561 Phone(415)757-5501,,,!keu November 17, 1977 .4, C.C.C. Planning Department P.O. Box 951 Martinez, CA 94553 ATTE14TION:•!t!Donna` Endom' • • r• rtro " ..u� , K. � (3entlemen _ \+ >� •J� i er'S ,J. I.., SU&TECT:� East County '.�(rea General Plan` t 1- `"� +'• _P be be`advised that' Big. Break Marina :Inc. •is located'iii±' .�..• '`,:. -the East-'County Area General Plan and has a designation 'aH 4i '""+ ` heavy Industrial. ' ` • -/ ... ai �y. •, 1.11 +'yh+�{ 'y.,� Big Break Marina^Inc. is 32 acres of"which 16 acres are ivaterl' •:;� On the water.'-ae:,have 134 covered boat, berths and 200 open boat berths, a boat. repair shop and two marine ways. -On land:lTJ� we have a restaurant:and bar, an electronic repair and.Bale s:0 office, an outboards repair facility, and a marine engine;+,,IJ j;,;A repair. We have a'.:mobile-home parl: and permaner_t residential"''121-, ct" + structures. the have 87 pert anent residents with ages from 6•;� �- °1v. .�,, months to!82.years.; # e;� .� , �i•Y;. V1k1r!k "k Is At the "present,ttime,_ aaproximately 12,000 people a month + .�; r r,1 • � "' ' utilize one or"moreof the services we offer, ' p`; `''r�uy t4 `' - Big Break Marina Inc. would appreciate the above be taken: into consideration on any decision relating to:the, zonings of ouryProperty .r Thank you, • 11:11 e•1 "1 � { ,, �I Bennie T. Best President IT ' +� •9 `f`� T•ti's; � � Big Break tlarina Inc. 6 � +, ,BTB/Hjb,.;;, 5Y� f?,T� �+ i.•,�.1•.ty �� 1;, ' '2 r ` � ! .,�`.�Y•t nl,_ .tri�.3s t 7 -'• _•._ ,t - ,..��- ••. M•r. • i''�+ a Board of rvisors /o Mr. Anthony Dehaesus { t {I Planning Director P.O. 951 Nov 3 9 42 W 9, Martinez, CA 94553 - - Gentlemen: Pursuant to discussions with members of the Planning Department, we are hereby requesting a change in zoning designation in the draft of the general plan for Contra Costa County on the following described property: 277.15 acres located north of A.T. & S.F. Railroad lines running approximately parallel to Highway 4 in the town of Oakley. Parcel Numbers 037-170-001, 003 and 004. The proposed use of the property is a golf couase, tennis courts and clubhouse. The clubhouse may include a restaurant and bar. It is possible that future development may include a marina and other water related activities and residential. A zoning to accomodate such use on said property is requested. Sincerely yours, Robert A, DalPorto, Executor of Estates of Anthony and Dinh DalPorto Marion Je a Michelotti Owners AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION NOTICE OFA PUBLIC HEARING IF LEDI In the Matter of mendment to the Count General Plan NOV 2 3 1977 J. R. OLSSON CMW BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ----------------------------------------------------------- CONI COS CO. ----------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Contra Costa ' Sharon_L - --------------------------------------- of said County, being duly sworn, deposes and says: THAT she is and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of the United States of America, over the age of twenty-one years, and that she is not, nor was she at any of the times hereinafter named a party to, nor interested in the above entitled matter; that she is the PRINCIPAL CLERK OF THE PRINTER of the "ANTIOCH LEDGER", a newspaper of general ' ;�r�s>r>Exs s>�t°�tior circulation, printed and published in the City of =-0 Antioch, County of Contra Costa, State of Cali- Y fornia, and which newspaper is published for the .% dissemination of local and telegraphic news and a intelligence of a general character, and which newspaper at all times here mentioned had ; and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying ° subscribers, and which newspaper has been es- tablished, printed and published at regular inter- vals in the said City of Antioch, County of Contra me Costa, State of California, for a period exceeding one year next preceding the date of publication of the notice hereinafter referred to; and which newspaper is not devoted to nor published for the 4. interests, entertainment, or instruction of a par- ` ,ot titular class, profession, trade, calling, race or ; denomination or any number of same; that the ;, d notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, h,ttles�r � has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof, on the following dates, to-wit: Published November 189 1977 •--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .t 4 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------•----- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------•---- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------•------- (Signed)----- - •--------- 00004 0 Subscribed and Sworn to before me this _-l4thday of-----N------------------------------------------ Notary vember- - - 19---77 Notary Public in and for the County of Contra costa, State of California. OFFICIAL SEA L Legal No. 77-608 '+ LEONA ( `RCNET7I -� NOTARY PUBLIC- CALIFORNIA (Court Decree No. 8269, Contra Costa County) PRINCIPAI MICE IN (January G, 1919) CONTRA COSTA COUNTY W Comn:ssioo Fipira Dec.8, 1978 9:X'Z' C7S,CX'Ca:'O- AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 1N THE_-BOARDF OSUPERVISORS In the Matter of F L E D RI coIzlFrlendation__S _the__plabnipZ_pommission N 0 V 15 1977 to adopt the East County General Plan, ------•--- ---------- ------- !. R. OMON an amendment to the County General Plan CLERK BOARD Or SUPERVISORS - ----_------------------------------------- ------- - CON OSTA CO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, I SS County of Contra Costa ' Sharon Lvneh ----- __ -------------------------------------------- of __ __------------------------------ of rt!�tsxo:ar�sa�a.o��la>c►aowtmortFt;scLn�n�r_a.A F said County, being duly sworn, deposes and ' >xTdTs of cA><.troailaws,> .' says: THAT she is and at all times herein oeMMara3 mentioned was a citizen of the United States of America, over the age of twenty-one years, and that she is not nor was she at any of the l�ifu�:t+iat�wa�t = 6M1siMItYL a'S��'�:'.li�ltaF times hereinafter named a party to, nor interested Yaaattrlcac�ttrarar in the above entitled matter; that she is the PRINCIPAL CLERK OF THE PRINTER of the "ANTIOCH LEDGER", a newspaper of_generalIryits eaoi tfi circulation, printed and published in the City of Antioch, County of Contra Costa, State of Cali- fornia, and 'which newspaper is published for the � �"` °k�0`` T�t�naeai�arR�rrts ao dissemination of local and telegraphic news and a> .4ta �aia+i ,Ata�ila , 8aaa► wT. A�tsiiittr aeiaa; intelligence of a general character, and which aatt ,�n �L�I�'�=�aNeoirir newspaper at all times here mentioned had ! ' and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying same as ;� subscribers, and which nevispaper has been es- AMOM-DAiCl��ta PA86ED bytMe all oa. tablished, printed and published at regular inter- vals in the said City of Antioch, County of Contra Ilan$i' Ilk'" Costa, State of California, for a period exceeding aauederaawtii' idrrl�iat7 aatd'atau,�d� _ one year next preceding the date of publication aagir _ � a of the notice hereinafter referred to; and which w` newspaper is not devoted to nor published for the tei� interests, entertainment, or instruction of a par- a ticular class, profession, trade, calling, race or denomination or any number of same; that the a Dem * notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire ' issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof, on the following dates, to-with= ., Published November 1, 1477 •--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...................__..._........_......__.......---._.....------------.........._...._ .........................................._............................................ $;f v�;vf✓�l .............................................................................. (Signed)--- Aaurn-_ .......... J(+ Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 2nd..._.. ay of-_.lio_v__ember-------------------------- 19..77 0000110 Notary Publk In and for the County of Contra costa. State of California. OFFICIAL SEAL Legal No. 77-616 ! LET A MARCHEETT! (Coon Decree No. 5269, Contra Costa County) UWARY PUBLIC - M11UR14IA Oanuary 6, I919) rRIUCtPat OFFTE trt +ar!3 CONTRA COST.I COUNTY My Catracssioo U;ims Dec.8, I978 0 1 In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California October 25 , 19 77 In the Matter of Recommendation of the Planning Commission to Adopt the East County General Plan, an Amendment to the County General . Plan. The Director of Planning having notified this Board that the Planning Commission recommends adoption of the East County General Plan, an amendment to the County General Plan; IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that a hearing be held on Tuesday, December 6, 1977 at 1 :30 p.m. in the Board Chambers, Room 107, Administration Building, Pine and Escobar Streets, Martinez, California, and that the Clerk publish notice of same as required by law in the ANTIOCH DAILY LEDGER. PASSED by the Board on October 25, 1977 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. CC: Director of Planning Witness my hand and the Seat of the Board of List of Names Provided Supervisors by Planning affixed this25thday of October 19 77 r-- ,, �J. R. OLSSON, Clerk By Deputy Clerk Ronda Amdahl 0000;-0 H -24 3/76 15m 0 0 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN. Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday, December 6, 1977 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 107 of the County Administration Building, corner of Pine and Excobar Streets, Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider a recommendation of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission to adopt the East County General Plan, an amendment to the County General Plan. The amendment would remove the "Eastern County Reserve" status imposed by the 1978 Open Space Conservation Plan, and would substitute it for more detailed land use designations. By order of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, : State of California. J. R. OLSSON, County Clerk and ex officio Clerk of the Board of ' Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, State of California. DATED: October 1977 Ronda Amdahl Deputy Clerk 0000,11-110 U • Jemes R.Olsson The Board of Supervisro Contra , County C!3rk and Ex OPh;,io Clerk of the Board Caut:;"r Administration Building Costa tars,C?nldlneRussd! P.O. Box 911 Chef C18r•'t 1'03rtinaz.California 94553 COUnty tot:;a'2-23%: .lames P.Kenny-Richmond 13:District is - Nancy C.Fandan-Martinez 2nd Di>:rict Aubert 1.Schroder-Lafayette 3rd District Warren N.Boggess-Concord 4th District crit H.Hasaeitine-Pittsburg October 25, 1977 5th District Antioch Daily Ledger - P. 0. Box 70 Antioch, California 94509 Gentlemen: Re: Purchase Order #r 08e66 Enclosed is Notice of Hearing on mendment to the_ _ , County General Plan w.,ich we wish, YOU uo publish On Moyemue-r 18, 1977 Please sign the enclosed card and return it to this office. Immediately upon the expiration of publication, send us an affidavit of publication in order that the Auditor may be authorized to pay your bill. Very truly yours, J. R. OLSSON, CLERK 000WI-0 15A RECEIVED ' CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OCT/9 1977 PLANNING DEPARTMENT J. R, OLSWN CLERK BOARD Of SUPERVISORS CONT TA CO. B ._. ... ...... Dewjtv TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: October 19, 1977 Attn: Clerk of the Board FROM: Anthony A. Dehaesus SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment Director of Plannin East County Area General Plan i( (S.D. V) Attached is Planning Commission Resolution No. 56-1977, approving the East County Area General Plan Amendment and recommending its adoption to the Board of Supervisors. The resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission on Tuesday, July 12, 1977. Public hearings on this General Plan Amendment were held by the Planning Commission on February 22, April 5, May 3 and June 7, 1977. Public hearings on the Environmental Impact Report were held on February 22 and March 15, 1977. Special study sessions on the General Plan Amendment were held by the Planning Commission on May 17 and June 21 , 1977. The Planning Commission certified the EIR as adequate, approved the General Plan Amendment and recommended its adoption to the Board on June 28, 1977 by a vote of five ayes and one no. The proposed amendment for the eastern portion of the County would remove the "Eastern County Reserve" status imposed by the 1978 Open Space Conser- vation Plan, and would substitute for it more detailed land use designations. Please present this matter to the Board of Supervisors to fix a date for public hearings. The date should be on November 8th or later. Those on the attached mailing list (107 persons) should be notified of the date and time of the Board of Supervisor's hearing. AAD/cad Attachments: Resolution, mailing list cc: Dept. File - East County General Plan Supervisors Districts I, II, III, IV, V Microfilmed with board order RESOLUTION NO. 56-1977 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE EAST COUNTY GENERAL PLAN, AN AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN. WHEREAS, in August 1973, the Board of Supervisors appointed a General Plan Review Committee to work with the Planning Department in the revision of the County General Plan as it relates to East County and on April 1 , 1976, the General Plan Re- view Committee approved a proposed draft Area General Plan and on May 6th and 27th, 1976, said Committee conducted public meetings in Oakley and Brentwood respectively and presented said proposals to area residents to solicit comments and input on same; and on June 17, 1976, the Committee met to review the various comments received at the public meetings and to finalize its recommended Draft Plan; and WHEREAS, staff prepared an Environmental Impact Report and distributed same for written comments and criticisms and transmitted same to the Planning Commission on February 18, 1977, and thereafter made it available to those interested; and WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been lawfully given, the Planning Commiss- ion conducted public hearings on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on February 22 and March 15, 1977 and closed the public hearing on the EIR and conducted public hearings on the Plan on February 22, April 5, May 5, and June 7, 1977, at which hearings persons appeared to speak on the Plan proposals; and the Planning Commiss- ion having discuss6d this Plan further at its Study Session on June 21 , 1977 and at its regular meeting of June 28, 1977; and WHEREAS, the nature of the East County Area General Plan is to change Land Use Element designation of all properties in the area covered by the Plan from East County Reserve Area to appropriate land use categories, and to address and give due consider- ation to all mandatory elements of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the staff did generally concur with the goals, policies and recommenda- tions of the East County Area General Plan as set forth by the Committee, except for - certain concerns as outlined by staff and in its staff reports of April 4, April 29 and June 3, 1977, and comments on the EIR having been duly responded to by staff;and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission having fully considered and evaluated all testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, recommends to the County Board of Supervisors APPROVAL of the East County Area General Plan Amendment, including both text and Microfilmed with board order 000040 Resolution No. 56-1977 maps as attached hereto as Exhibit A through H, incorporating the staff recommenda- tions, which includes redesignation of the portion of the Miller, Lauritzen and Bertrand properties from Industrial to Agricultural Residential ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission having reviewed the submitted in response to it, and studied the written replies to the comments and criticisms, finds that the environmental document-- constituting the Final Environ- mental Impact Report are adequate and provide an environmental analysis suitable for decision making on the project; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to its responsibilities as a hearing body for Environmental Impact Reports for County projects, the County Planning Commission certifies to the County Board of Supervisors that it finds the Environmental Impact Report to be ADEQUATE and that it has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and with State guidelines and County processing procedures; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that WHEREAS the Citv of Brentwood is undertaking studies to update and revise its General Plan, this Commission hereby states its intent that--- upon adoption of said General Plan by the City of Brentwood---hearings be held by the Planning Commission to consider whether any, all or part of the City's plan should be incorporated into the County General Plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission concurs with the findings of the Environmental Impact Report that the East County Area General Plan would have certain environmental effects but finds the project justified for the following reasons: The project as recommended for adoption was deemed the most favorable altern- ative when all impacts were considered. This plan incorporates a stronger emphasis on the preservation of prime agricultural lands than the County General Plan adopted in 1963. Social and economic factors, the recognition of approved developments, and the emphasis on staged infilling of development into areas with availability of sewer and water services render the approved plan environmentally superior to the previously adopted County General Plan for this area; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the County Planning Commission finds that the following significant impacts would result from implementation of the project and adopts the associated mitigation measures to minimize those impacts to the greatest possible degree. -2- Kr_rofilmed with board order 00001iU • Resolution No. 56-1977 THE VIABILITY OF AGRICULTURE: Viability of agriculture in East Contra Costa County is impacted by numerous factors. Some of the major factors include small minimum parcel size which causes high costs of operation, scattered residential development which inhibits some standard farm practices and potential conflicts between recrea- tional and agricultural uses. Smaller parcels are more expensive to farm because of the higher cost of moving farm equipment from parcel to parcel , limitations in the manner in which insecticides and fertilizer may be distributed and the inability of small parcels to support the cost of mechanical harvesting equipment. The County Planning Commission finds that: The agriculture industry is of great im- portance to the economic base of the East County Area and to the County as a whole, and establishes as its primary objective, in concert with the East County Area General Plan, the preservation and enhancement of soils suitable for agriculture. The quest- ion of appropriate parcel size adequate for agriculture viability is a complex one. Economically feasible agricultural units depend on several variables. The Planning Commission, therefore, has added the following recommendation to the East County Area General Plan, under Required Implementation Pleasures; "Initiate a study on the issue of parcel size and agricultural viability after the adoption of the East County Area General Plan." BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Planning Commission will review the minimum parcel size criteria for the Williamson Act program to determine if modifications should be made to further encourage the use of this program and to protect agriculture in the East County Area; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the addition of criteria for recreational uses in the area designated for Agriculture-Recreation will reduce conflicts between these two major uses. PLANNED COMMUNITY HOLDING CAPACITY: The population holding capacity of the areas designated as Planned Communities is well above the population anticipated during the Planning Period. Moreover, land use in the Planned Communities is heavily oriented toward residential uses based upon commuting trips to places of work. There is no balance between housing and employment in the Planning Area. The County Planning Commission finds that: The Plan anticipates a population of 25,000 in the Planning Area by 1990. The provision of excess holding capacity, within reasonable limits, is desirable to afford developers and residents a variety of choice and options. In order to direct growth in a logical manner and to minimize the impacts of development on remaining agricultural lands in this interim, a phas- ing mechanism for growth is built into this Plan for the Oakley-Sandhill portion of -3- Microfilmed with board order 0000,Q • Resolution No. 56-1977 the Oakley-Brentwood Planned Community. The following policies provide appropriate phasing of development: New Development is encouraged to take place within the Oakley County Water Dis- trict and Oakley Sanitary District boundaries, basically north of the Contra Costa Canal , as an infilling process and in a contiguous manner where water and sewer mains can be efficiently extended. The area designated for Single Family Residential - Low Density uses, south of the Contra Costa Canal , should be considered as interim agriculture since viable agricultural units exist here and the area is not necessary to accommodate growth to 1990. This interim agriculture status should be reviewed periodically. This portion of the Planned Community should be considered for urban development (subdivision) only when all of the following criteria are met: a. The contiguous Planned Community area is largely developed; i .e. , most of the area in Oakley north of Laurel Road is built out at the residential densities assigned by the General Plan. b. Adequate utility capacity is available and service lines or trunks are in proximity to the area. c. Costs of providing the development with public services, including street improvements, are fully assumed by the developer. The Planning Commission has incorporated the above policy statements into the Plan text. ABSENCE OF GUIDELINES FOR THE AGRICULTURE-RESIDENTIAL AREA: The proposed plan does not establish criteria or guildelines for evaluating the appropriateness of subdivis- ion applications in the area designated "Agriculture-Residential". Premature develop- ment of outlying portions of the Agricultrue-Residential area could result in scatter- ed, inefficient and potentially costly development in terms of public services. The County Planning Commission finds that: Without specific guidelines and criteria set forth, continued pressures for parcel divisions and development will persists. The Commission recommends that this issue be addressed as part of the recommended study on Agricultural Viablility to be undertaken following the adopt- ion of the General Plan. AIR QUALITY: East County lies within a "critical air basin" as defined by the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District. As East County is transformed from a rural area to an increasingly suburban highway-oriented community, there will be a proport- ionate increase in automobile emissions. While important locally, these emissions will be only a small fraction of the total Bay Area emissions and which of �o t e i 9,u East County Area. -4- Micro`i'rned with board order Resolution No.56-1977 The County Planning Commission finds: The majority of the air quality impacts affecting East County are derived from pollution sources outside of the area and be- yond the control of that community. Further, that Federal and State regulations re- quiring more stringent air quality devices on automobiles will minimize the impacts of this Plan to a large degree. COMMUNITY FACILITIES: The East County area is experiencing strong pressures for growth and is planned for substantial new development which may cause problems in the provision of the community facilities needed to support development. The ability of the school system to accommodate this growth will be -strained over the life of the Plan. Additional public controls on development are needed to ensure that adequate levels of sewer, water and transportation facilities are available to allow the growth in a manner consistent with the public health and welfare. The County Planning Commission finds that: The added clarification of service availability criteria in the Plan will ensure appropriate standards of public sewer and water service. Further, that the phasing of growth in the Oakley/Sandhill areas will assist in allowing development only in the proximity of existing community facilities, which will provide time to allow the development of additional facilities to accommodate new growth. PROTECTION OF DELTA RESOURCES: The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is a critical re- source to the State as well as the County. Development in the Delta is affected by the fact that much of the land is flood prone and is located within the floodplain of a 100 year storm The aquatic, marsh and riparian habitats of the Delta region are under increased pressure as neaby communities grow in size and as water-related rec- reation becomes more popular. Flood control improvements have removed much of the marshland and riparian vegetation, and the sloughs are disturbed by dredging. Unless protective measures are taken, the wildlife value and vegetative diversity of the Delta will continue to decline. Also, the increased presence of man in the Delta will have a negative effect on the quality of recreation. The most serious long- term threat to the Delta is to the quality of the waters. The protection of this resource is critical to the Delta's long-range agricultural and recreation resources. The County Planning Commission finds that: An indirect impact of the General Plan will be increased use of Delta waterways. The distinction between increased use and over-use is a complex problem, which cannot be addressed adequately on a project by project basis, but rather must be dealt with in concert with other Delta counties. The Plan does protect the Delta from residential development by (J("40 -5- AAicrofilmed with board order Resolution No. 56-1977 the minimum parcel size from five (5) acres to twenty (20) acres and by establishing criteria for location and design of major water-oriented recreation facilities. How- ever, in order to protect the Delta as a major agricultural and recreational resource, the efforts of the County hater Agency to maintain and improve Delta water quality must be successful . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all other written and graphic developed for these proceedings are made part of this record; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission hereby instructs the Director of Planning to prepare the necessary transmittals and to submit them to the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the Government Code of the State of California. The instruction by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution was given by motion of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, June 28, 1977, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners - Anderson, Stoddard, Phillips, Young, Compagl i a, Milano. NOES: Commissioners - William V. Walton, III. ABSENT: Commissioners - None. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. I, William L. Milano, Chairman of the Planning Commission of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing was duly called and held in accordance with the law on Tuesday, July 12, 1977, and that this resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: Commissioners - Young, Phillips, Stoddard, Compaglia, Anderson, Walton, Milano. NOES: Commissioners - None. ABSENT: Commissioners - None. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. t ............ - Chairman of the Plann' g Commission of the County of Contra Costa, State of California ATTEST: RECEIVED Secretary of the Planning Commission of the OC T /9 1977 County of Contra Costa, State of California J. R. OLSSON `` CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS V 00,cl 0 CONT TA CO. 1�7�t�i0. <<11CU tiVltil board oiaar By... . ._,......Deputy -6- 28 June I91! t GENERAL PLAN AMENDPIENT: CLOSED, FOR DECISION: BEAST COUNTY GENERAL PLAN: This is a closed hearing to review and consider the proposed East County Area General Plan, an amendment to the Contra Costa County General Plan. This Area General Plan is concerned with the easterly portion of the County, generally east of the Antioch Bridge approach and Deer Valley and Vasco Roads. The proposals of the plan will remove the Eastern County Reserve status placed there with the adoption of the County Open Space Conservation Plan in 1973, and will substitute more detailed land use designations. MR. DEHAESUS: The Commission has all of our staff reports and the materials be- fore you. Are there any questions? CHAIRMAN MILANO: I have some comments to make to the other Commissioners. During the past week, I 've talked with several people in East County and they have pointed out to me that the Study Committee that was appointed and spent a good deal of time on this, felt that they had reached a satisfactory compromise when the came up with the 10 acre minimum and they feel that 10 acre minimum should stand. I got the feel- ing that if we don' t adopt the 10 acre minimum, that we would be letting them down. So, I would like to speak in favor of the 10 acre minimum for the East County Gen- eral Plan. On the material that has been given to us on this matter, I don't seem to find anything relative to the recommendations I had made so I'm going to ask the quest- ion again: There are a lot of parcels in East County that are adjacent to existing develop- ments that are two acres, three acres---all under the 5 acre A-2 Zoning minimum. It was my understanding thatin our talks that there would be a study made and the staff would come up with a recommendation on those parcels. Is that correct? MR. DEHAESUS: Yes. 000oz.U 796 • • • 28 June 1977 CHAIRMAN MILANO: Thant: you. Are tfirr•e any further comments? --� COMMISSIONER YOUNG: ;Ir. Chairman, I 'd like to conanen t on this. We feel that we have spent a lot of time on this general plan; but, really, the Committee spent just a tremendous amount of time and effort and I 'd like to say that although we are probably going to make some changes in the plan, those that are proposed by the staff are really refinements and by no means detract in any way from this effort which demonstrates the time and knowledge and experience that the people of East County put into it. With respect to the agricultural core area, on Page 1#13 of the plan, it brings up the matter of a 10 acre minimum and on Page 1#14, under "Agricultural-Recreation" , the matter of the 20 acre minimum. I for one have felt continuously that those two minimums were too small . Now, I 'm aware of the fact that the people in the area feel strongly about it and if other Commissioners wish to retain the minimums which are shown here in the plan, I 'll certainly go along with them. I 'd like to record the fact that to me the minimums are small considering the importance of agriculture to the area and to the County, and they are much smaller minimums than those which are found in most counties which have a substantial amount of agricultural production; but, as I say, I will go along with the other Commissioners on this point. CHAIRMAN MILANO: I 'd also like to point out that at our last meeting and the meet- ing before, vie indicated to the City of Brentwood in relation to their General Plan that we would review it for possible incorporation into this plan. We asked the staff for a statement on this which possibly could be our policy on that matter. For those of you here tonight, I will read this to you so there will be no misunderstanding. It says: "Whereas, the City of Brentwood is undertaking studies to up-date and revise its general plan, this Commission hereby states its intent that upon adoption of said general plan by the City of Brentwood, hearings be held by the Planning Commission to consider whether all or part of the City's plan should be incorporated into the County General Plan." So, that is our pledge as far as that particular item is concerned. I might point out that we may adopt the city's general plan; we may amend it and so forth; but, in any event, we will hold hearings in order to consider their general plan for adoption into the County General Plan for East County. COMMISSIONER COf1PAGLIA: Hr. Chairman, I 'd like to make it a little stronger than that and put emphasis on the word "consider". The fact that it does come in at some time in the future, I don't want anybody from that area to feel that just be- cause they submit a plan it will be incorporated. It will be considered for incor- poration and at that time we will make the decision whether or not it will be or it won't be. COMMISSIONER WALTON: In going over this the many times that we have, I think there's only one point of contention here as far as I 'm concerned. I madery,�� comments on that last week at our study session. I would like to make somIV400ee1.0 -� same ones here tonight. s Back in 1972, there was a study done by tine Land Conservation Committee called "The + Preservation of Prime Agricultural Lands in Eastern Contra Costa County." In that report, one of the questions asked: "To what size should preserves in the prime agricultural land be reduced?" Tile answer to that in part is: "The committee de- cided that 35 acres was an effective size because it was big enough to be maintained 797 213 June 1977 economically yet small enough to attr,r(.L a fair number of owners" and it goes on. But, my real point in this has to be rhai: this was a study conducted in 1972 and I 'm thoroughly convinced that the eco�«flniics if they've changed, they've changed a for the worst to the extent that it p)-obably would take more acreage to make ft economically more feasible today. So, again, we're talking about 117,000 acres in the planning area. The agricultural core area is 14,000 acres out of that 117,000. It runs through completely the EIR through the East County General Plan Study that was made that one of the primary purposes, if not the primary purpose is to preserve agricultural lands. Well , we know we got 14,000 acres out there with 20,000 acres that are Class I and Class II soils and we're trying to preserve 14,000 of it. As far as I 'm concerned, that remaining 100,000 or more acres in East County, the developers can play with that in a reasonable manner as we're suggesting and as far as I 'm concerned, it's hands off that core area and that doesn't mean 10 acre minimums. That means some- thing bigger. As far as I 'm concerned, 20 acres is a bear minimum and I would like to see it larger and that's why I would like to see 20 and 40 on the record and then go ahead with the study to see if we want to increase it to a larger degree. I don't feel that you can compromise if you want to make agricultural viable out there and a compromise down to 10 acres is simply a vote to destroy agriculture in East County and let the developers in and that's the one area we don't want that to happen in. They have 100,000 acres in other areas to play with. CHAIRMAN MILANO: Are there any other conmients by the Commissioners? (There were no further comments). Well , gentlemen, this hearing is closed for decision and it is before us now. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Well , the staff has given us an outline of the procedures to follow on all of these various itei;rs for our consideration. The first matter was the environmental impact report and we did hold 'hearings on that with quite a bit of input; we had a lot of written continent as well as verbal comments and the answers have been drafted. Upon motion of Conmrissioner Young, seconded by Commissioner Compaglia, it was moved that the Environmental Impact Report on the East County General Plan Amendment be accepted by the Planning Commission as being adequate for Commission purposes. A roll-call vote was taken; following is the Commission's recorded vote: AYES: Commissioners - Young, Compaglia, Anderson, Walton, Phillips, Stoddard, flilano. NOES: Commissioners - None. ABSENT: Commissioners - None. ABSTAIN: Conanissioners - None. Motion carried. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: fir. Chairman, I propose that we take a vote on this matter of the minimums. In the draft plan, on Page #13, under Agricultural Core, the Committee recommends a 10 acre minimum parcel size and on Page ##14, under Agricul- tural Recreation, the Connrrittee recommends a 20 acre minimum size. MoilI would like to move that we amend those recommendations to 20 acres and 40 respectively. COMMISSIONER WALTON: fir. Chairman, I don't know if 11r. Young would want to make 798 28 June 1971 this part of his motion; that in addition to -making this change that a study would be undertaken to determine whe+.;!er that parcel size was the appropriate ,^ parcel size? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Yes. This is included in the staff recommendations--- C0111MISSIONER WALTON: The only thing I want to get away from is that that is a certainty as to that being the perfect size; but, that we do have some reserva- tions about that being the perfect size and we'd like a study to be done on it. CONHISSIONER C011PAGLIA: Fir. Chairman, I 'd like to speak to that point. I think we're talking about 10, 20 and 40 acres. I feel that if we're going to go to the 20/40, perhaps we establish the agricultural core area as the one this would apply to and then the 10 acre parcels would be those not considered in the prime agricult- ural lands. I wouldn't like to see us get locked in with lot sizes in areas that wouldn't justify it nor on the other hand be so liberal with our lot sizes that we viould break it up into small pieces in the Agricultural Core Area where it wouldn't be economically feasible to farm the land. COM1MISSIONER ANDERSON: I don't know about that. I think I agree with Mr. 11ilano and that I disagree with this particular motion, Mr. Young. I think the 10 acre minimum in the Staff recommendation on Page #13 is the acceptable minimum. COW4ISSIONER YOUNG: Mr. Chairman,it. is my thought only to clarify the issue and if the decision is to leave the minimums as recommended by the Committee, why then we just pass over the point and would no longer have to refer to it. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I guess that's why I 'm voicing my opinion now. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: And, I can't find the staff recommendation for the study but I know it's in their recommendations. (Maybe Nr. Dehaesus could clear up this point. MR. DEHAESUS: We had recommended 10 and 20 acres and that's only because we deferred to the Committee as mentioned previously we did prefer 20 and 40 acre minimunrs; but, in deference to the Committee, we would go along with their recomm- endation. I think the issue is pretty well stated in Pages#1 3 and #14 and if we really want to protect the agricultural situation in East County, then the issues are pretty well stated there as to what needs to be done. Also, in Item 575 on the listing, the suggested procedure sheet, you will see how this is all pulled together regarding 20/40 acres and that this should include a viability study for agricultural uses and include minimum parcel sizes that relates to the Williamson Act to provide further incentives for inclusion into that act. Also, we have the other criteria for the development of the residential patterns as mentioned by Mr. Milano earlier indicating those areas where patterns have been established for parcel sizes under the criteria and then re-establishing those as separate areas for further lot consideration. COHNISSIONER ANDERSON: Then, it would seem to me that we would want to change that i5-A (1 ) from 10 acres to 20 acres. COIMMISSIONER WALTON: No. I don't. C011,HISSIONER ANDERSON: Well , Mr. Young is trying to reach a consensus on that. idr. j Hilano felt one way--- CHAIRMAN MILANO: Mr. Young felt that we should discuss this first and he stat�jd his opinion on it. "00U,1,0 COiIMISSIONER YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, the plan already includes the recommendation of 10 acres and 20 acres. If are wanted to make that change, it would be necessary to 799 • 28 June 1977 do so specifically. If we could deal •lith this particular point, then we would know whether or not if we should adnpl (.pie reconnendation of the Committee as originally drafted. COMf1ISSIONER WALTON: You originally made that in the form of a motion. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Yes, I did. COMMISSIONER WALTON: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN MILANO: We have a motion to change the minimum acreage from 10 acres and 20 acres to 40 acres. Is that right? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: The motion is to amend the recommendations of the Study Committee making the minimums 20 and 40 acres rather than 10 and 20. COMMISSIONER COMPAGLIA: For the benefit of the people in the audience, will the staff explain what you mean by 10 and 20? MR. DEHAESUS: ter. Fenichel will indicate that on the maps. MR. FENICHEL: As the general plan now reads and recommended by the Committee, there are three sets of minimum acreages. One is 5 acres in the Agricultural-Resi- dential the next is 10 acres minimum in the Agricultural Core; the next is 20 acres minimum in the Agriculture-Recreation. What is being proposed is to leave the Agriculture-Residential as it is at 5 acres but to increase this area (indicating area on map) and instead of having a 10 acre minimum have a 20 acre minimum in the Agricultural Core and instead of having a r� 20 acre minimum in the Agricultural-Recreation, increase it to 40 acres. This is what you discussed at the June 21st study session meeting. CHAIRMAN MILANO: I suppose everyone understands the motion? (No comments to the contrary from the Commissioners) . Call the roll on the motion, please. A roll-call vote was taken; following is the Commission's recorded vote: AYES: Commissioners - Young, Walton, Compaglia. NOES: Commissioners - Anderson, Phillips, Stoddard, Milano. ABSENT: Commissioners - None. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. Motion failed. CHAIRMAN MILANO: The motion has failed. Does someone care to make a motion now* that we follow the committee's recommendation? Upon motion of Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner--- HR. DEHAESUS: Do you have any other changes in mind? I was thinking if there are to be no further changes, you might make a motion to approve the plan as presented and recommended. You could follow the suggestion in our report and we have a draft resolution which includes much of this material . There are references there to the minimum acreage which would be changed or written in accordance with your prior motion and also there's a suggested change in here regarding Big Break Area and then these other studies to be undertaken would also be included in your motion. 000040 800 713 July 1917 ' COMMISSIONER C01111AGLIA: lir. Chairman, m this draft resolution, that portion con- cerning the City of Brentwood, indir.,r1.{ > that all or part of their plan would be incorporated into the County General t'I,in. I would like it to say all , or part or ,iny of it. The way it's written here locks us in again. CHAIR14AN MILANO: Well , actually, are would be considering all of it or part of it--- COMMISSIONER COMPAGLIA: Or none of it. COMMISSIONER WALTON: Right, or none of it. COiiMISSIONER ANDERSON: In other words, vie might not like any of their recommenda- tions. I think it should be clear as fir. Compaglia has been saying with his word "consider". CHAIRMAN HILANO: So, you want it to say Any, All or Part of the plan? Upon motion of Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Stoddard, it was moved that the Planning Commission instruct the Planning Staff to prepare a reso- lution recommending to the Board of Supervisors APPROVAL of the East County General Plan Amendment as per the draft resolution with modifications on Page #1 from 10 to 20 acres and on Page #2, in relation to the Brentwood General Plan, "Any, All or Part" and underscoring the word "consider"; on Page #3, remove the third para- gra'ph;, On Page #6, second paragraph; raising the parcel size from 5 acres to 20 acres. A roll-call vote was taken; following is the Commission's recorded vote: --. 11R. DEHAESUS: Before you call the roll on the motion, this motion would include all the items listed in Item r2 and Item #6 and that further studies will be under- taken as identified here in this listing. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Yes, right. A roll-call vote was taken at this time: AYES: Commissioners - Anderson, Stoddard, Phillips, Young, Compaglia, Milano. NOES: Commissioners - William V. Walton, III. ABSENT: Commissioners - None. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. Motion carried. • 00 00; 0 i _. RECEIVED RR77 J. R. OLSSON CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTR O TA CO. B .__ .. ..Deputy EAST COUNTY AREA GENERAL PLAN AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN FOR- CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A Draf t Proposal was Prepared in April, 1976 by the East County Area General Plan Review Committee with the Assistance of the Contra Costa County Planning Department Revised Draft approved by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on June 28, 1977. 0000,1 o A draft proposal of the East County General Plan was prepared by the East County General Plan Committee with the assistance of the Contra Costa County Planning Department. The citizen's committee includes the following persons: Stanley Planchon, Committee Chairman Evo Baldocchi Tiny Bettencourt Milford L. Beutler John Bloomfield, Chairman, Residential Subcommittee William Bunn Ernest Burroughs Leonard Celoni Joseph Cunningham Robert Dal Porto Joanne Dean Lucy Delaney Gerti Dei Barber Charles C. Duffy, 1M.D. Hasten England Leonard Gerry Carl Hanson Jack Hernandez Arthur E. Honegger, Chairman, Community Facilities Subcommittee Lee Laird, Jr. Paul Lamborn Robert Lasley Kenneth Lee Richard Lewis Ernest Luna Sheldon G. Moore, Chairman, Transportation Subcommittee Ronald Nunn, Chairman, Agricultural Subcommittee Ray Ramirez William Snow, Chairman, Commerce and Industry Subcommittee Gene Stonebarger, Chairman, Recreation Subcommittee TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 BACKGROUND FOR PLANNING 3 Development Trends 3 Population Growth 3 Environmental Factors 4 GOALS AND POLICIES 6 THE GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS 11 Land Use Element 11 Housing Element 27 Circulation Element 28 Open Space and Conservation Element 31 Community Facilities Element 32 Safety Element 43 Seismic Safety Element 44 Noise Element 44 IMPLEMENTATION 45 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C 000040 TABLE OF CONTENTS Tables and Charts Following Page: Location Map 3 East County Area General Plan 15 Oakley Community Plan 22 Phasing of Growth, Oakley 22 Brentwood Community Plan 22 Knightsen Community Plan 22 Byron Community Plan 22 Discovery Bay Community Plan 22 Bethel Island-Sand Mound Slough Community Plan 22 East County Circulation Plan to 1990 29 Community Facilities 32 APPENDIX A Table A-1 East County General Plan Population By Age Group, 1960, 1970, 1975 Table A-2 East Countv General Plan Composition of the Population by Race 1960, 1970, 1975 Table A-3 East County General Plan Summary of Housing Statistics April, 1970 Table A-4 East County General Plan Housing Inventory, 1970-1975 Table A-5 East County General Plan Poverty Level And Housing Indicators April, 1970 Table A-6 East County General Plan Contra Costa Housing Authority Units - January 1, 1970 to January 1, 1974 Table A-7 East County General Plan Existing School Facilities 0000,10 { APPENDIX B Table B-1 East County General Plan Existing Land Use (1974) Table B-2 East County General Plan Prime Soils In Agriculture Core APPENDIX C Table C-1 East County General Plan Existing School Facilities, 1975 Table C-2 East County General Plan Proposed Land Use Table C-3 East County General Plan Proposed Land Use By Community INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Area Plan is to revise the existing General Plan of Contra Costa County, as it pertains to the easterly portion of the county generally defined as being east of Bridgehead Road, Deer Valley Road and Vasco Road, as shown on the Location Map. This portion of Contra Costa County has long been a rural agricultural area experiencing only limited demand for urban growth. However, in the past several years the demand for the subdivision of agricultural lands has been on the increase, thus producing a scattered growth pattern lacking appropriate services. (The process of premature subdivision has caused many instances of breaking up prime agricultural lands into smaller parcels which can not be farmed economically, both depriving the region and the state of food and fiber production and putting additional economic pressure on nearby agricultural holdings, while rendering the provision of services more costly and inefficiendl Attempts to stem the trend toward the break-up of agricultural lands and to preserve prime land for agricultural production caused the establishment__of .a Reserve Areaesignation in the Open Space and Conservation Element of the GenecaI_Plan. (The Reserve Area status was established until the community and the could jointly develop an appropriate Area Plan to guide future development in East Count. The East County General Plan Committee, a citizen advisory group, was appointed by the Board of Supervisors to assist and advise the County Planning Department in developing an.Area Plan for the East County Planning Area. This Area Plan is the result of over two years of work. It consists of both text and maps, which together constitute an amendment to the County General Plan and its component elements. The broad objectives of this General Plan are: - To establish a pattern of land uses which will promote a high degree of health, safety, and efficiency for the 'well being of ' the East County community. -- ------ -- - - To_proyide for the maintenance and viability-of the_egricultural community. • - To relate new development directly to the provision of community facilities necessary to service that development. - To update and bring together the various land use elements of the General Plan for the area. To integrate selected special purpose elements into one General Plan document. • l . 0000,10 The basic concepts underlying the Plan are simple; in order_to.preserve_ the best agricultural areas for intensive agricultural uses, such as truck farming, orchards, and row crops, the prime agricultural soils are delineated and designated for continued agricultural use, while on less desirable and productive soils other land uses are also permitted. Recreational uses are permitted in the proximity of the recreational waterways, while _residential uses at suburban densities are..delineated in clusters where major circulation elements, and water and sewer services are either already available or can be logically extended. In addition, safety considerations relating to flooding and other natural hazards are taken_ into account in determining the location and intensities..., .of,, future land uses. The resulting Area Plan accommodates not only the 1975 population of approximately 15,000, but also provides for the additional 10,000 persons expected to move into the Planning Area by 1990. The holding capacity (the population which could be accommodated pursuant to the Plan policies) exceeds 68,000. This excess of capacity beyond anticipated growth demands allows a vel substantial_margin for alternative development choices. It is expected that the Area Plan will be reviewed periodically at the minimum three years prior to the expiration of the Plan, and revised if necessary. 2 BACKGROUND FOR PLANNING This Area Plan is based on data in a series of six background reports which were prepared to provide the East County General Plan Review Committee with information required for its work. Subjects covered in detail included population characteristics, community facilities, physical resources, transportation, eco- nomic characteristics, and land use and zoning. The reports are on file with the Planning Department. .DEVELOPMENT TRENDS The Planning Area covers a total of 184 square miles (25.5 percent of the total County area) and contains a population of approximately 15,000 (in 1975) at a density of 75.6 persons per square mile. This low population density, combined with moderate population growth, characterizes the generally rural-suburban nature of the area. The population is largely concentrated in small communities (Brentwood, Byron, Bethel Island, Oakley and Knightsen) primarily oriented to Highway 4. POPULATION GROWTH Contra Costa County as a whole experienced rapid growth during the period of 1940 to 1975, while East County experienced a slow but gradual growth during the same period. The County as a whole grew rapidly from a pre-war population of 100,500 to a 1975 population of 582,829 persons, an increase of 480 percent. Over the same thirty-five year period, East County population increased from 5,606 to 15,228, a 172 percent increase. The Planning Area consistently exhibits a higher population of elderly residents than the County as a whole. It also contains a minority population of approximately 17.9 percent, largely of Mexican, Mexican-American and Chicano ethinic, which is higher than the percentage of the County as a whole. Population estimates for the next. ten years, utilizing various growth rate assumptions well in excess of past experience, indicate that between 18,000 and 25,000 persons would reasonably be expected to reside in the East County Planning Area by 1990. These estimates are on the high side, reflecting the increased growth rate of the early 1970's. Brentwood, the largest and only incorporated community in the Planning Area, was established in 1874 and incorporated in 1948. Historically, community growth in the Planning Area has been gradual, with no significant peaks at any one time. This gradual growth of the Planning Area as a whole is reflected in Brentwood; however, the city is experiencing an increased growth rate and contained 3,700 persons in 1975, an increase of 38.2 percent since 1970, brought about through both annexations and development. 0000,'0 3 r Oakley, Byron and KnightsenI were developed as railroad-oriented communities in the late 1800's. In 1975 Oakley had a population of approximately 3,000 and Byron of approximately 450. Both communities have experienced fluctuations in population over time and appear to be experiencing an upswing at the present time. The 1975 population for Knightsen was 91. Bethel Island, basically a recreation and retirement community, had a 1975 population of 1,400 persons. ENVIRONMEiNTAL FACTORS CLILMATE The climate of the East County Planning Area is a modified Mediterranean type. The winters are mild but rainy and the summers are moderate to hot and subject to drought. The region's topography causes a considerable variation in rainfall and temperature in different portions of the area with rainfall ranging from 17 inches in the southwest hills to less than 12 inches in the eastern Delta. Approximately 90 percent of the precipitation falls in the months of October through April. The climate is conducive to productive agricultural operations. GEOLOGY AND SOILS The geologic "formations" exposed in the East County Planning Area differ in age, origin, rock characteristics, and engineering properties. The southwest portion of the Planning Area is rugged and hilly, falling off into the valley floor to the east. Dominating the western fringe of Planning Area are the hills of the Diablo Range. The gentle'to moderate slopes (5 to 15 percent) of the foothills have characteristics similar to valley soils and the steeper upland slopes. Generally speaking, grazing is the predominant use of this transitional zone with a few orchards existing on the shallower slopes. Along the eastern perimeter of the Planning Area are found the Delta Islands. The Planning Area contains approximately 17,000 acres of prime agricultural soils (Class I and II--SCS Soil Survey). They are intensively farmed, mainly supporting orchards, annual row crops, alfalfa, and other pasture crops. These soil types encompass most of the area around Brentwood extending basically in southerly, easterly, and northerly directions. Most soils in the Planning Area are suited to some form of agricultural pursuit. The exceptions are the marsh areas, rock outcrops, the dense oak woodlands found on some north-facing slopes, quarry sites, and those areas which are now developed into urban uses. 1Boundaries as defined by the Contra Costa County 1975 Census. 4 FLOOD PLAIN Approximately 43,000 acres of the Planning Area, the entire north and east fringe of the Planning Area, fall within the 100 year flood plain. Thousands of acres of the Delta lowlands and islands are protected from floods and high tides by a network of man-made levees, some of which are over 100 years old. ��.�iany of the levees are in poor condition and need to be rehabilitated. Land subsidence, which results in ever-increasing pressures on the levees, further compounds the problem. Consequently, the Delta experienced major levee failures with resulting flooding. Since 1950, Webb Tract and Quimby Island have flooded; Webb Tract and Quimby Island have since been reclaimed. Based on past flooding experience and the vulnerability of the levees to ground- shaking effects of major earthquakes, the Delta islands and other low-lying lands are considered to be subject to flooding. U.S. Geological Survey Maps, 1973, indicate that the area below the 10-foot contour is flood prone (i.e., may be inundated by a 100 year flood). This includes the Delta islands and lowland areas north and northwest of Knightsen. Special consideration must be given this factor in the design and approval of development in these areas. VEGETATION The dominant species are the introduced annual grasses and flowering plants which have their maximum growth during the winter rainy season. Open woodland-grass combinations are found along the north and northwest-facing slopes with blue oak, interior live oak, and California buckeye the principal tree cover. In more sheltered areas such as canyons where more moisture is available, and in areas of greater rainfall, the woodland growth is more dense. The foothills and steep uplands constitute some of the best coastal grazing land in the State. Grass hay is cut near the Alameda County border. In the Planning Area, marshland is confined to the small "channel islands" scattered along the sloughs and Old River. Because of silting, portions of Big Break are returning to their original marshy condition. Vegetation here consists principally of sedges, common tule, bull tule, willow, cottonwood, and many flowering plants. Streamside plant associations are located in stream channels, canyon bottoms, and along many levees. They include the same species as the hillside woodlands plus willow, alders, cottonwood; and other trees and shrubs requiring an abundance of water. The riparian vegetation helps to reduce bank and levee erosion, maintains wildlife populations, and contributes to scenic and recreation values. 5 Location Map z SOIANO COUNTY t SACRAMENTO COUNTY MARIN COUNTY I �' l t ... r 06 PLANNING AREA ;> . '>:'. sAN ,toApuIr+ COUNTY �O M r`J l /r ••^` goo , Owy ....`.. � �t COMMA COSTA COUNTY l_ u X11 o T°��N/nrq :>:'�'''��.'`.`• .�""�,. N At AN1EDA COUNTY "= 35,000' 1 � • 1 } �oII I Iri i GOALS AND POLICIES The Area General Plan is intended to meet the planning goals outlined below. The coals describe the kind of environment considered desirable. The policies enunciated are designed_to provide means of achieving the goals. (Goals and policies were formed for each of the following: agriculture, planned communities, recreation community, recreation, industry, circulation and com- munity facilities AGRICULTURE-- GOAL To encourage the preservation and enhancement of agriculture. 6-POLICIES - Preserve designated prime agricultural lands for agricultural use. - Encourage and maintain the integrity of viable agricultural lands. - Provide for the subdivision of agricultural land to an extent compatible with surrounding agricultural uses and zoning. - �lklake agricultural zoning reflective of agricultural use. - Provide a circulation system appropriate to rural development to support land uses and economic activity. - Encourage water reclamation and other physical development projects which would increase, enhance, and protect agricultural land and its production capabilities. - Encourage research into means of maintaining and improving the economic viability of agriculture in East County. - Real estate taxes levied on agricultural lands should be assessed on the basis of gcicultural use, not potential urban development values. ,JPLANNED COMMUNITIES) GOAL To develop a "sense" of community through the development of safe, healthful and attractive living. environments and a range of housing styles, types, and cost • ranges to suit varying needs and desires; to ensure that land uses are mutually 0000,40 6 i compatible, functional, and aesthetically pleasing; and to provide balanced levels of commercial and office development, community facilities and coordinated circulation, which will maintain and complement the.rural nature of the area. POLICIES - Give highest priority to the preservation of prime agricultural soils; urban development should be directed to areas of non-prime soils. - Encourage contiguous growth in an orderly and efficient manner. - Require existing and future urban development to be serviced by urban utilities and facilities, such as sewer and water services, when available. - Develop balanced communities through the integration of all urban uses with equitable land use allocations and the provision for appropriate community facilities. - Develop land use and circulation plans appropriate to each community, with higher residential densities permitted in Oakley, Byron, and Knightsen townsites when water and sewer services are developed. - Create an East County project review commi-tee (advisory) with the capacity to review and recommend project changes. RECREATION COMMUNITY ' GOAL To provide and maintain a water-oriented recreation community supported by necessary residential and commercial development. POLICIES - Define land use allocations appropriate to water-related recreation, to. ensure balanced and contiguous growth compatible with the Delta's unique ecology. Require existing andfuture urban development connect to service facilities (water and sewer) when available. RECREATION GOAL To allow recreational development only in a manner which complements the natural features of the area, including the topography, waterways, vegetation and soil characteristics; to protect and enhance attributes of the Delta; and to preserve and maintain historic sites. 0000110 7 a POLICIES - Distribute and manage recreation activity according to the area's carrying capacity with special emphasis on controlling adverse environmental impact, conflict between uses, and trespass. At the same time recognize the regional importance of the area's recreation resources. Promote levee improvement programs. Obtain a well balanced distribution of local parks, related to the character and intensity of present and planned residential development. INDUSTRY 't GOAL To provide and maintain employment centers appropriate to the rural nature of the area and to aid in developing the economic base of the Planning Area through new employment opportunities. POLICIES •►- - Concentrate industrial development in areas immediately adjacent to major transportation corridors. - Encourage the development of agriculturally related industry which will enhance the continued productivity of agriculture. - Encourage industries which have the capability of employing East County residents. - Define auto dismantling activity as an industrial use and confine its future development to designated industrial areas. IRCULATION GOAL To achieve a safe, efficient, and coordinated transportation system capable of serving and supporting the citizens and the economic base of the area, and to minimize conflict between agricultural and urban land uses. POLICIES - Provide a circulation system appropriate to rural development to support various land uses and economic activity. - Provide for controlled access onto Highway 4 within areas designated for residential development growth in the Planned Communities. 000040 9 Encourage the use of buffer zones between residential areas and major transportation corridors and industrial facilities. Route new arterials around rather than through residential areas. Plan a system of bicycle paths and hiking traits to connect community facilities, residential areas, and the business district, as well as points of interest outside the community utilizing existing public and semi-public right-of-way. Reduce the dependence on the automobile by encouraging the patronage of public transportation. Maintain the present road system in designated agricultural regions, with improvements confined to upgrading of structural deficiencies such as road widths, alignment, and drainage. Develop roads in hill areas to conform with topography in order to minimize disturbance of slope and natural features of the land. COMMUNITY FACILITIES GOAL To obtain maximum benefit from existing public structures; to provide adequate public services, cultural and recreational facilities for residents of all ages. POLICIES - Provide civic, cultural and recreational facilities adequate to handle present and future demand. - Maintain and upgrade existing public utility, fire, police and all other public services as needed to adequately protect and serve existing and new development. - Utilize existing and future public facilities, such as schools, libraries and communities halls, as neighborhood activity centers. - Preserve and restore wherever possible, areas and structures of historic • signif icance. 0000,1-U 10 THE GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS (State law requires local government to prepare and adopt a General Plan, including as a minimum elements of land use, housing, circulation, scenic routes, open space, conservation, safety, seismic safety and noise. This Area General Plan includes the required elements of land use, circulation and open space as well as the optional elements of recreation, trails and community facilities. Housing, conservation, safety, seismic safety, scenic routes and noise are addressed in Countywide elements and are referenced to the Countywide Elements. This Area General Plan is designed to detail the General Plan elements named above, as they relate to the East County Planning Area. Elements which are not amended by this Area Plan continue to be in effect as the governing county policy throughout the county, including the East County area. The Area General Plan consists of both maps and text. The text outlines the plan policies, and the PlanMaps delineate the distribution and location of land uses, roads, facilities and other features. The Area General Plan elements provide for the continuance and enhancement of agricultural activities, orderly growth of communities, the future growth of industry, all served by appropriately located roads and community facilities. Provision of future road improvements, flood control works and other major public projects should be coordinated with and partly paid by private develop- ment, so that the required public capital expenditures will not cause major increases in property taxes. The Plan designates large acreages of land for continued agricultural and rural activity in the Planning Area. In addition, it provides for a substantial area designated for suburban development. The developable area is substantially larger than that required for a potential population of 25,000. It is expected that the provision of an excess area for development will have two positive results: (1) pressures to develop lands designated for agriculture will be reduced, and (2) the development area is sufficiently large to allow for alternative locational choices. The Plan provides for balanced growth through designation of appropriate areas for a variety of uses, including land for residential, commercial and industrial uses. The development of the commercial and industrial areas will strengthen the Planning-Area-economy and provide for further employment opportunities for resid t5 of the Planning Area. J:AND USE ELEMENT TheLand—Use--1 lem€nt of the Area General Plan uses the following land use categories, discussed in greater detail below, and describes their disposition: Agriculture Agricultural Core 00001!0 11 Agriculture-Recreation Agriculture-Residential Planned Community and Recreation Community Residential Single Family (Low, Medium and High Density) Multiple Family (Low andMedium Density) Urban Density Rural Density Commercial Office Light Industry Commercial Recreation Public/Semi-Public s Recreation Major Parks/Recreation Areas Local Parks Historic Sites Trails Industry The location of land uses is shown on an overall map of the Planning Area, and the individual uses within the "Planned Community and Recreation Community" category are shown on larger scale maps which detail the specific land uses within the "Planned Communities" of Oakley-Brentwood, Byron, Knightsen, and Discovery Bay, and the "Recreation Community" of Bethel Island/Sand Mound Slough. AGRICULTURE The economy of eastern Contra Costa is based primarily on agriculture and related industries. The Planning Area contains approximately 40 percent of the County's agricultural land and it produced an average income of more than $27,000,000 from 1970 to 1974, an average of 72.8 percent of the County's agricultural total for the same period. Acreage in agriculture in Contra Costa County,diminished from 299,954 in 1960 to 244,705 in 1970, a decrease of 18 percent. The reasons for this reduction include among others urbanization, land permanently taken out of agriculture production, and land converted to recreational use. The primary objective of this Area General Plan is the preservation of productive agricultural lands in the Planning Area on prime soils, so that viable agricultural activity may continue. In order to achieve this goal, a number of land use policies must be adopted, existing zoning and other ordinances refined, and new and effective programs developed and implemented. 1Contra Costa County Agriculture Department. 00001 U 12 A number of factors inhibit the future viability of agricultural operations in eastern Contra Costa County. A major problem pertains to small parcel size. Where parcels are small it is more expensive to farm the land because of costs involved in moving equipment from parcel to parcel and the limitations on the manner in which insecticides and fertilizers may be applied. Land suitable for agriculture may also be suited for urban development, primarily because it is flat and easy to build upon. Through the minor subdivision process, large acreages can ultimately be divided into five acres lots with exceptions granted from development plans and improvements normally required for major subdivisions. This process fragments existing agricultural land and places an additional burden on the farmers in the area who wish to continue farming. Division into smaller parcels often also results in higher assessments and higher real estate taxes, and may render agricultural operations economically infea- sible. Market valuation of farm land and the resultant tax burden levied on them is another impact on agricultural viability. State revenue and taxation laws require all lands to be assessed at 25 percent of the fair market value that results from the "highest and best use" of the land. A problem arises when viable farm land is assessed at a speculative value for urban use rather than one reflective of farm values. When agricultural and residential uses adjoin, a number of directly associated problems often develop. In general, residential areas hamper the farmer trying to operate his farm in an efficient manner, and the farm use may annoy nearby residents. Very low residential densities would minimize these conflicts. The policies of this Plan will exclude suburban development from agricultural areas, and will permit only basic agricultural and rural and recreation uses in these areas. Services and facilities, in turn will be based upon rural and agricultural needs. On the other hand, the Plan acknowledges the existence of certain non-conforming prior parcels and ownerships in all land use areas. Agricultural Core Approximately 14,600 acres (12 percent of the Planning Area) are designated as the Agricultural Core. These are prime agricultural lands with soils rating as Class I or Class II in the land use capability classification of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. Most lands shown in this category are • now used for agricultural purposes and are expected to continue in this use. Agricultural pursuits in the agricultural core should be protected by requiring a 10 acre minimum parcel size to maintain economically feasible commercial- agricultural units. The creation of small uneconomical units will be discouraged by land use controls so that it will be unnecessary for property owners to market the land in small parcels. 00004110 13 Agriculture-Recreation A 20 acre minimum parcel size is applied in this category. It encompasses the Delta islands and Delta lowlands which may be subject to occasional flooding. Both have potential recreational value, but will remain primarily in agricultural use during the plan period. However, if future economic conditions or urban pressures cause a change in the use of these lands, future recreational uses should not conflict with the predominant agricultural uses. Recreational development should be limited to areas where compatible with agricultural uses, and full protection from a 100-year fl000d and urban levels of services may not be provided in the foreseeable future in these areas. Approximately 31,387 acres (27 percent of the Planning Area) are designated for this use. Docks and marinas permitted by the implementing zoning district shall be considered for approval in certain areas based on the following criteria: - Where projects can be clustered and located adjacent to similar uses. - Along waterways at least 3 feet lklean Lower Low Water and of an adequate channel width as defined by the State Harbors and Navigation Code.. - In areas having adequate public vehicular access. - Where offsite improvements, such as required access roads, can be assigned to development. - Where adequate onsite sewage disposal can be provided. - Where located in an area served by a public fire protection district. Agriculture-Residential Lands designated Agriculture-Residential are located essentially west and north of the Agricultural Core, encompassing the steeper slopes and foothillls of the Planning Area, totaling approximately 54,640 acres (46 percent of the Planning Area). This area, due to its lower agricultural value, may be allowed to develop at a very low density, permitting parcels as small as 5 acres subject to applicable health and safety standards. Most of the Agriculture-Residential area should not be required for development during the planning period; therefore, existing extensive agriculture should be encouraged to continue. 000010 14 PLANNED COtMIM UNITIES AND RECREATION COMMUNITY Achievement of the goal of preserving productive agricultural lands can only be realized if residential, commercial, and light industrial growth is directed into non-agricultural areas. Four existing communities in the Planning Area have been delineated as urban growth centers on the General Plan map, and identified as "Planned Communities". Criteria used for selection of Planned Communities are: lands now served by water and sewer facilities; lands to which such services can be logically and economically extended in the near future; and/or soils of non-prime classification. The community of Oakley and the City of Brentwood will form the nuclei for the largest Planned Community. The small communities of Knightsen in the north central portion of the Planning Area and Byron in the southern portion will form small nodes for urban-residential development. The fourth Planned Community is Discovery Bay in the eastern section of the Planning Area, near the San Joaquin County line. Bethel Island/Sand Mound Slough is shown as a Recreation Community denoting its appropriateness for water related recreation. The Planned Community/Recreation Community concept seeks to enhance the rural nature of the Planning Area and at the same time develop a "sense" of community and cohesion within each growth center. The Area General Plan will facilitate implementation of this concept: - Each community will retain its downtown district as the business and commercial center, with efforts directed toward its rehabilitation and enhancement. Adequate areas will be reserved for commercial expansion as the need arises. - Future urban development within these urban growth areas will.be required to connect to urban utilities and facilities such as sewer and water services. This action will promote the objective of efficient, orderly and coordinated growth as characterized by the Planned Community concept. - The Area General Plan prescribes the locational pattern of each Planned Community and establishes specific objectives concerning urban development. - The Area General Plan provides for a development policy which ties urban growth to the availability of urban services. - The Area General Plan acknowledges the General Plan of the City of Brentwood and the previously approved development pattern of Discovery Bay. Residential In East County, current residential land use accounts for 2,200 acres or 1.9 percent of the total 117,500 acres in the Planning Area. Much of this use is concentrated in Bethel Island (150 acres), Oakley (300 acres), Sand Hill (250 00001-.0 15 East County Area General Plan Planned Community Recreation Community _ Industry .J x. Recreation ?;: . ::... rC rr Agricultural Core Agriculture-Recreation / cy u Agriculture-Residential - ,t:a e`•' Public&Semi-Public f', .' FRANKS /+ TRACT Water !f,BETM£L ISLANO j Area Boundary BIG BREAK . t . < OAKLEY y q r Ex" `� i:' :::•:'r NORTH' 1 1 `/r/ii; '✓f/, i%. a %/„� / ;/ 0 12.000' Lane Trss Way BRENTWOOD -•�" ��•S`..�"� -`.` ..4`• �-::-1.,...,.:.,_...-. !/ fjf // F, �- 1n{.tV" 4 f;v} �yti: r t �"/r / .8aifour RC�f;:r .. ,L.�.fL S•".t.-, 1'.`.+71"x' +I<` 1,� 'r::..,�.� � k. Z., /4 �'// •` y••- '+'-Y�' •'�•�"1 ` C••: OISCOVERY BAY ! v+eca as//,i%j%r f /f,•.^��1. / %i' i CLIFTON COURT OREBAY fJ/fi/j'! FM/ / acres), Brentwood (150 acres), Byron (100 acres) and Discovery Bay (620 acres). The remaining acreage is dispersed throughout the remainder of the Planning ;area. Single family residences constitute 89 percent (2,000 acres) of the total residential land use. The next most prevalent residential use is the mobile home park at 115 acres or about 5 percent of the total. Individual mobile homes occupy another 60 acres (about 3 percent), while multiple family dwellings and group quarters occupy 35 acres (2 percent) and 15 acres (less than 1 percent), respectively. The Pian utilizes five residential land use categories: three Single Family Residential and two Multiple Family Residential designations. Single Family Residential This land use provides for the expansion of single family homes in the Planning Area. The density and development of single family homes is related to service- availability criteria (water and sanitary sewer) as defined below: Minimum Allowable Service Availabilitv Parcel Size No public water or water connection 5 acres available. One public service (sewer or water) 1 acre connection available. Both public water and sewer connections Minimum parcel size consistent with available. the densities specified below. and drainage, health, and other appli- cable standards. A "public water" connection shall mean a connection to any one of the following: Oakley County Water District; City of Brentwood; Contra Costa Nater District, if in an improvement district; a county sanitation district which also provides community water, including County Districts 15 and 19; or any water or other district authorized to provide and providing such service. . A public water connection shall not include mutual water companies, irrigation or reclamation districts. "Public sewer" connection shall mean a connection to a sewer in a sanitary or sanitation district authorized to provide and providing such including: City of Brentwood, Byron Sanitary District, Oakley Sanitary District and County Sanitation Districts 15 and 19, or other district created for that purpose. 00001!0 16 0 The community facilities availability criteria for parcel divisions shall apply to non-residential uses as well as residential uses. In the case of an existing lot of substandard size where both water and septic tank are required, at least one acre of land shall be required. The application of these development criteria is directed at providing a contiguous growth pattern, allowing residential development to take place in an orderly manner. The criteria apply to all residential areas indicated on the Plan Map. - Single Family Residential - Low Density (1-3 Units/Net Acre) This designation is for areas generally in outlying locations, on land inconveniently located with respect to transportation and other local and regional facilities. Large lot suburban density uses are appropriate here. - Single Family Residential - Medium Density (3-5 Units/Net Acre) This designation is for areas which are located on the periphery of the downtown areas of the Knightsen and Byron communities. It allows for a transition between agricultural/residential use and high density single family uses. - Single Family Residential - High Density (5-7 Units/Net Acre) High density areas are on easily developed land, convenient to transportation and shopping facilities. Also included within this category are duplexes which would generate a maximum 8-9 Units/Net Acre. This designation reflects existing small lot neighborhoods in the Planned Communities and the perimeter of Bethel Island and Sand Mound Slough. Where service availability criteria and designated densities diverge, the more restrictive shall govern. On Bethel Island and SandMound Slough only, Single Family High Density use is construed to include boat harbors, launching facilities, and ancillary uses, after granting of a Land Use Permit. Multiple Family Residential The Plan provides for areas of multiple family units in Oakley, Byron and Discovery Bay. Multiple family areas are located near shopping and major traffic routes and provide for a variety of housing types and residence choices. Additional areas are designated for this use in the Recreation Community of Bethel Island, including Sand Mound Slough. Multiple family housing density ranges are set forth below, and generally range from 7 to 21 units per net acre. In addition to providing for multiple family residential units, this land use category also includes mobile home parks. Multiple Family Residential - Low Density (7-12 Units/Net Acre) 000040 17 Low density multiple family areas are shown in Discovery Bay. The emphasis here is on convenient location, transition between residential and commercial uses, and a suburban atmosphere through landscaped areas. Duplexes and mobile home parks are included in this land use category. Multiple Family Residential - Medium Density (12-21 Units/Net Acre) This density provides for a wide range of housing types, from single story patio homes and two-story townhouses in the middle of the range, to two- story townhouse and apartment complexes at the higher end of the range. Areas in Byron and Oakley are shown for this use. Urban Densitv These areas are located within the City of Brentwood and reflect the designation of the existing City of Brentwood General Plan. As defined in the City's General Plan, urban density development includes some commercial and industrial development, and residential development including apartments with a density of at least 3 dwelling units per acre. Rural Density These areas are located within the City of Brentwood and reflect the designation of the existing City of Brentwood General Plan. As defined in the City's General Plan, rural density uses are residential uses developed in large lots (at least %: to 1 acre in size) or clustered with most of the site left in open space, preferably in agricultural use. Commercial Currently business activity in the Planning Area is generally concentrated in Oakley, Brentwood and the Highway 4 corridor between the two communities. The remainder of the business activity is located mostly in Bethel Island, Knightsen and Byron. The Plan provides for the expansion of business activity contiguous to present commercial development, and is intended to maintain the viability of the current "downtown" of each of the communities. Since each of the commercial areas is relatively small, commercial and office uses are not delineated separately except in Discovery Bay. The Plan recognizes the need for local convenience shopping centers within the Planning Area, and the need for a limited number of these activities in residential areas should be recognized. Office Office uses are delineated separately in the Discovery Bay Planned Community. Areas provide for professional, administrative and geneval business offices on a 18 �� minimum lot size of approximately one-third acre. Typical uses include professional offices for the practice of law, architecture, dentistry, medicine, engineering, and accounting; business offices for insurance and real estate; administrative, executive, and editorial offices. Light Industry Light industrial uses provide for local employment opportunities and the expansion of the economic base of the community. The Plan provides areas designated for light industry in the communities of Oakley, Knightsen, and Byron. These areas are located to take advantage of railroad sidings and major transportation routes to facilitate shopping and receiving of goods. Initially, industries will be of a type which will enhance and support the agricultural community. Later expansion should include more broadly based light industrial complexes providing greater opportunity for a variety of jobs within the Planning Area. The General Plan of the City of Brentwood also provides for light industrial use along the Southern Pacific right-of-way through town. Commercial Recreation Commercial recreation uses are delineated in the Discovery Bay community. The area outlined denotes commercial uses oriented around the golf course and marina. These include a clubhouse, restaurant, harbormaster's office, launching ramps and driving range. Public/Semi-Public The Public/Semi-Public category reflects the major publicly and semi-publicly owned lands and facilities such as schools, County offices, utilities, etc. The Plan acknowledges the general compatibility of these uses with other land use categories. The projected need for these facilities is discussed in the Community Facilities Element of this Plan. THE PLANNED C0MIMUNITIES The brief description below summarize the major land use proposals for each Planned Community. In general, the proposals reflect existing land use patterns, extended and based upon estimates of future population growth and potential demand and supply for public facilities. Oaklev-Brentwood • This Planned Community is the largest in the Planning Area and extends from the Neroly-Bridgehead Roads area southeasterly through the Oakley and Sand Hill areas to link with the City of Brentwood. It is envisioned that most development 0000/1/0 19 in this area will fill-in vacant lands already served by roads and utilities, and will take place at development densities in keeping with the character of the area. In the Oakley area new development is encouraged to take place within the Oakley County Water District and Oakley Sanitary District boundaries, basically north of the Contra Costa Canal, as an infilling process and in a contiguous fashion where water and sewer mains can be efficiently extended. The area designated for Single Family Residential - Low Density uses, south of Laurel Road, should be considered as interim agriculture since viable agricultural units exist here and the area is not needed to accommodate growth to 1990. This interim agriculture status should be reviewed periodically. This portion of the Planned Community should be considered for urban development (subdivision) only when all of the following criteria are met: - The contiguous Planned Community area is largely developed; i.e., most of the area in Oakley north of Laurel Road is built out at the residential densities assigned by the General Plan. - Adequate utility capacity is available and service lines or trunks are in proximity to area. - Costs of providing the development with public services, including street improvements, are fully assumed by the developer. Commercial land use is indicated along Highway 4 between Neroly Road and Live Oak Road; at Highway 4 and Empire Avenue; along Highway 4 through the present business district of Oakley;.at the intersection of Highway 4 and Cypress Road; and along Highway 4, extending both north and south of Lone Tree Way. Multiple Family Residential uses are located west of Highway 4 north of Empire Avenue, along the south side of Highway 4 easterly from Empire Avenue; and between Old Highway 4 and its relocation in the Oakley area. The Light Industrial land use is shown along the ATSF Railroad tracks from just north of Main Street to the Contra Costa Canal in Oakley. Public/Semi-Public land uses include the Oakley and Gehringer schogls; the Oakley Sewage Treatment Plan; and the Brentwood city sewage treatment plant located alongMarsh Creek Channel east of Highway 4. The remainder of the Planned Community is indicated for Single Family Residential use at high and low densities. The adopted General Plan of the City of Brentwood is shown for both the areas within • the city limits and is reflected in the densities in the established Sphere of Influence of the city. The holding capacity of this Planned Community is estimated at approximately 30,000 persons, if appropriate public facilities can be provided, though the population is estimated at 14,600 in 1990. Knightsen The community of Knightsen is generally located at the intersection of Knightsen Avenue and Delta Road, northeasterly of the City of Brentwood. The land use element of the Plan generally reflects existing development in the community. The westerly portion of the community is designated for Single Family 0000110 20 Residential (high and medium density) land use and provides substantial areas where new residential development could occur. Existing residential develop- ment east of the Knightsen Elementary School is also shown. The commercial land uses are concentrated on the southerly side of Knightsen Avenue, between First Street and Delta Road, sufficient in size to serve not only Knightsen but the surrounding agricultural area. Light Industry is outlined for the area fronting on the northerly side of Knightsen Avenue along the ATSF Railroad tracks. The Knightsen Elementary School, located in the easterly portion of the community, comprises the Public/Semi-Public land use category. Holding capacity is estimated at 250, and the 1990 population at approximately 160. Byron Byron is centered along the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way in the southerly portion of the Planning Area. Multiple Family Residential, Commer- cial and Light Industry uses are clustered in the central part of the community, and also extend northerly along the Byron Highway. The Single Family Residential uses, both high and medium density, are designated around the more intensive land uses discussed above. The Byron Elementary School and the Byron Fire Station, located in the north and south parts of the community, respectively, comprise the Public/Semi-Public land use category. The land use proposals in the Byron area provide for a holding capacity of up to 1,500 persons with a 1990 population of approximately 600 persons. Discovery Bay Discovery Bay is a water oriented residential community located in the easterly• portion of the Planning Area near the San Joaquin County line. At full development, Discovery Bay could'grow from its present population of 90 to approximately 12,000 persons. Development will be comprised primarily of single family homes, with some multiple family residential and commercial- recreation development around man-made lagoons and water channels. The community will also contain limited commercial development in its center and commercial and office development at its southerly edge along Highway 4. Recreational facilities will include a golf course, neighborhood parks and commercial marina. RECREATION COMMUNITY The area indicated as Recreation Community is planned to accommodate uses which are primarily oriented to a recreational opportunity, including certain related residential and commercial uses. The Area General Plan designates the community of Bethel Island and an area along SandMound and Dutch Sloughs for this type of recreation oriented use. Bethel Island/Sand ;Mound Slough Five land use designations are applied in the Bethel Island Area. The existing commercial uses located along Bethel Island Road at the entrance to the island are designated in the commercial land use category, as are the major marina and 21 000040 boat harbor complexes. The perimeter and a large portion of the south and southeasterly part of the island, as well as lands along the southerly bank of Dutch Slough and along Sand ;Mound Boulevard are shown as Single Family Residential - High Density uses, and also include small existing boating facilities. The condominium complex on Sand Mound Slough and an area at the eastern end of Gateway Boulevard are designated for Multiple Family - Low Density uses. The central portion of the island is designated for Agriculture-Residential. Holding capacity is estimated at 6,400, and 1990 population at 2,900. 22 0000. 0 STAVE HIJY.4__- r g S X. R R r i fr r Plan nit Oakley Comms y (A Portion of the Oakley Brentwood '\ ' 'r Communis Plan Y f k r r' CYPRESS RD. r Yl- W• t' • 1 t J, .. C, a i' :;: \.: CI,ITRA. �' ` •'•'••'•••:•:'�' LEGEND �. . . . . ;.;r. ':•.'.:'1 S I,JrLE FAMILY RES I DSII • • • ' ' LAUREL RD. •'• _ • • • \ TIAL-L014 w;•' .. . . . i-••:•••••'•••••••:•:•:••• SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL- ct HIGH : : :. . . MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL- \' ••••• ...................MEDIUM . . . . . . COMMERCIAL '�'�'. �'•'• .'.•: w••.'.'•'.'.'•'.'.;•;•;•'•'.' '�'�' ''• • '•••� •••� '�' \'• ;:;:;.; :•.•: ;.•.;.;.; DELTA�RD.•:: HumLIGHT INDUSTRY . . .. a;; ;:;:; • PUBLIC & SEMI-PUBLIC . . . CD: ;•, w � i LONE TREE WAY \ . . . . . . . x . �. w � : : . . . . . . . . . . . 7 \ • ' f ••• LIJ - j ` •'•'• SUIISET RD. C p 3000' \ r See Brentwood Community Plan C :... STATE NIJY 4 � .4 T Phasing ofi Growth, Oakley S •F R •R .' 0 r:• r.• :titf'i+S•:'i• 'r y•yam��,,�� :ny;;{�•:.:. i } t Pri Y mar Growth ...A •ea CYPRESS[ S R0 r' C Cos o. �r p i' .L :W !`:tip::�'�:•:'�:�'�>:�:v:::::y::}} :: Q» li!! LAUREL RD. �r Secondary Growth � 1 NORTII `P Area W • \ (Interim Agriculture) 0 1500` 3000' p� • DELTA RD. W d a CY a LONE TRITE WAY \ c � w � SUNSET RD. `"C " Brentwood Community Plan �A Portion of the Oakley - Brentwood Planned Community) LONE TREE 'WAY S See Oakley Community Plan ? SUNSET RD. c X. z w F_ u z` L.L. t :#: ':• . :: 'i .: •:..� .. DAIiITY AVE. •"•'•'•'•o o :•o :.• i r ; ;.,C CLARRE"t RD. "••• :•. BALFOUR RD. LEGEND s SINGLE FAiiILY RESIDENTIAL-LOW Ao SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-i•IEDIUM � SINGLE F.41MILY RESIDENTIAL-HIGH F- � URBAiJ DE:SITY-COtIiIERCIAL,IiJDUSTRIAL & -' < I" = 2000' RESIDENTIAL DENSITY-LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL 000040 c� 9� p Knightsen Community Pian NORTH a 0 300' 600' DELTA ROAD L G EN 0 rii�frrrir� iir;ri iii •. SINGLE FAMILY RES IDENTIAL41EDIUM �.._.:i�:: .SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-HIGH �✓F � Y COMMERCIAL 4�r LIGHT INDUSTRY �� •f; PUBLIC & SEM-PUBLIC 000w_10 0 Byron Community Plan } BYER P.D. \ \ ..•.�� < �.� ti 1 % ......k c . , CAt•1INO � • DIABLO CD . .... LEGEND .............. . ......................... SINGLEL` SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM �O SINGLE FAh1ILY RESIDENTIAL-HIGH MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-1-11EDIUM � N COMMERCIAL ® LIGHT INDUSTRY 0 300600' PUBLIC & SEMI-PUBLIC Discovery Bay Community Plan / r :r. 7 J :i 'C ,Y f :•<: :::::: :. lJ ;d• C C; :4 O. ' J V C!7 • . \\ `• << / : .' ': S `fit :i.• r c G F ,o' 'r r3 �t. ?- •a F �. A L O. i// l /. .•1 / (( PRE /. 4� 1• _ IWICK DR. CLIP. :D 1 R DR ? �•` " ';' HIGHWAY 4 LEGEND . SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-HIGH _ 1`tULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-LOW COMMERCIAL 0 900' 1300, COMMERCIAL RECREATION OFFICE %;'; -JPUBLIC & SE]III-PUBLIC o • Bethel Island - Sand Mound Slough Community plan f :.. ;: :...��c'=>-' :�.. �• { -.rte:• r •.reZ•� ;f'�•• p%T .,(•r^ 'S�:f✓•-. .f?� :..•-c t:�rr.F��.f i C'iitc'r'_ ;f i�{%�� ••_ c'r� �ice'..(-. •-.t�t7�' 1� c. •- �('ry !_ �'r.::. f^.r -,C;: oc �c'�• '`.( .;' O,r.::-rr. tir' r R..��.�.r��. t•. r fa r cam ' >. t` %. �f C` ta=C`r+• .i';.:. F''• r�j0=. ty R•t:(•s•:r!- '!"1•'.L'-.• '�•'-.''• •r f Cis ry.. a. a r,. elk. _ kt' F;�•�C� r»r..-''C.j,.�.�r_,r r;.t�''-i-•:.: Z 'l':•C' it y• :C:•''-:- � ct c: c ''*' rC+�• 1 ¢ alt• � `r.{ Z C �{� % t r.•c•�-. T. t s•' rF t a .. f'r•C r r N ['r. f% (' '•C C L�'< .t.�t r� C,Ei�•�fA ••�yl,:•'—' ,T� ':EC.L�f.E1 �t y:-f;•�,� KxK'•. rC ' , +•r �! • * •:' ,ec._ ^ X. ^ -'r�� SL r ^CYr,:!7f s.�•W ^^ � a..:(r..•2+� •L�.;> Cr, r'� w —6- :7•' L'•C'r`��4ir,�� -j ter{•^ �•• C..=C"•t'..♦:-r'_�G7 t �•-1s CC�•r. . •' .�;- -(-r .0 ,�. it �l!Z_7-CC` Sr r�{��:tw C{: ;�_cYr, t+rt=.�..-lr::•.}+fit. ^ Fn •�':�'�•mrafY'(ti'(^r,(^r+1_'� ^f1• r(1 W: Ir�+ \��a `rf=`tCl'Yrt�' Z''�Z' fi �'�'..�F i�t • �•^ `•� 9 xK i. ti RD. GA TE.0 �Y O , K l O X Y� x Y• K^ ' t n �( K LEGEND - iv. Single Family Residential-Low Density Single Family Residential-High Density 0 1500' 3000' Multiple Family Residential-Low Density < i K . T Commercial _; •�`� , Agriculture Residential 0000,?!0 RECREATIOiN A major objective of the Area General Plan is the preservation of natural recreational resources in the Planning Area. These resources are indicated on the Plan Llap as recreational land, and once utilized for other uses can not be replaced. Most of this land has important environmental, ecological, historic, and other chacteristics from which it derives its recreational potential. It is the intent of this Plan that these recreational areas be utilized by public or private recreationally-oriented developments or be preserved for future recreational use. ;Major Parks/Recreation Areas L State Facilities A variety of state agencies exert influence over the Delta area and, therefore also on a portion of the East County Planning Area. Those agencies primarily concerned with recreation are the Department of Fish and Game and the Department of Parks and Recreation. Frank's Tract State Park Recreation Area. This area is basically a 3,310 acre lake surrounded by perimeter levee remnants, which form a long line of slender islands. The park is maintained primarily for water-oriented recreation activities. Park-type accommodations and public boat launching facilities do not exist within the Recreation Area itself. Water access to the Tract is provided through private marinas and launching facilities on Bethel Island and on adjacent sloughs. The nearest public boat launching ramp is located in Antioch. The Plan reflects a state program of park land development in the Frank's Tract Recreation Area. The state has assigned high priority to the acquisition and development of an intensive park facility which would include camping, picnicking, and boat-launching areas to relieve demands on Brannan Island State Park and to satisfy current demands at Frank's Tract. A site on the north shore of Bethel Island is deemed most appropriate for such a facility, since highway access is available and Bethel Island is already partly developed for recreation uses. Clifton Court Forebay. The Forebay, a water supply reservoir for the State Water Project Delta Pumping Plant, consists of 2,200 acres of water surface and eight miles of shoreline. The Forebay is now used for bank fishing and waterfowl • hunting, and present recreation faciliites include auto parking, a boat launching ramp and portable sanitation facilites. The Plan supports further development of a wider variety of recreation facilities, including approximately 100 acres of state lands available for onshore facilities for beaches, camp sites, picnic areas, concession areas and permanent sanitation facilities. Wildlife and Scenic Areas. The State's Delta ,'Master Recreation Plan identifies areas of scenic beauty and unique wildlife resource which should be preserved and managed in the public interest. Two areas in the Planning Area are the Old River Islands between Rock Slough and Quimby Island and Big Break. The East 23 Bay Regional Park District in cooperation with the U.S. Corps of Engineers is considering the possibility of developing the Big Break area as a regional park. Big Break has been identified as suitable for development as a "Wildlife Management Area". Local Parks The Area General Plan recommends that local neighborhood and community parks within the Planned and Recreation communities be provided as they develop. The County Park and Recreation Element of the General Plan provides a standard of four park acres per 1,000 population. Wherever possible, school sites should be used to augment the park and recreation needs of the community. Existing local park lands in the Planning Area include the Brentwood Park (4 acres) and a tot lot facility (7,000 square feet), in the City of Brentwood; and a 3 acre park located on part of the Oakley School grounds in Oakley. An analysis of existing park facilities, applying County acreage standards, indicates a deficiency of 93 acres in the Planning Area based on a projected 1990 population of 25,000 persons. A formal mechanism to provide local park facilities to communities on an area wide basis does not now exist, since no County parks and recreation departments exist and the Planning Area does not lie within the East Bay Regional Park District. Portions of the Planning Area are serviced by other means: - The Brentwood Parks and Recreation District provides local park facilities and services in the Brentwood area. - County Service Area LIB-1 1, originally established to provide library services, will maintain the joint school-park facility at the Oakley School in conjunction with the Oakley Elementary School District. - The Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District, originally established to provide levee maintenance and drainage facilities, may assume park and recreation service responsibilities. Major Parks The Area General Plan designates the JohnMarsh Home, the surrounding area and Marsh Creek Reservoir, as public and semi-public use. This facility is also a potential park facility. The County presently owns the home site which covers over 7 acres. The historic home and reservoir could provide a setting for a subregional park facility, serving not only people from the Planning Area, but also from the Central County. The Plan recognizes the potential for private recreational development at Byron Hot Springs and designates this area for recreational use. 24 0000110 Historic Sites In addition to the John Marsh Home, other sites in East County are also worthy of consideration for preservation. If and when funds become available, these sites should be considered for protection and restoration. Babbe's Landing, Sellers Road Preston House, near Byron Geddes House, near Brentwood Iron House School, Cypress Avenue and Sellers Road McCabe House, Brentwood Road Byron Hot Springs Hotel, near Byron Vasco Caves, near Byron Byers House, Byron Murphy and Wallace Homes, Brentwood Darby House Site, near Brentwood Hoffman House, Byron Coats Hall, Brentwood Parrish House of Methodist Church, Byron Point of Timber Landing, Indian Slough Point of Timber Trading Center, Point of Timber Road and Highway 4 Byron Grange Hall, Byron Byron IOOF Hall, Byron Liberty Grammar School, near Brentwood Riding and Hiking Trails and Bicycle Paths Currently no trails or paths exist in the Planning Area. Future trails and paths should be integrated with the Countywide Recreation Element to provide for a system of recreation trails and paths within the County. Trail routes are shown in the County Interim Hiking and Riding Trail and Bicycle Path plans, except that in essentially level East County Areas hiking trails and riding trails should be located jointly. Trails will generally connect Oakley with Bethel Island, Brentwood, and the Marsh Creek Reservoir. Highway 4 will serve as a connection to San Joaquin County. 25 INDUSTRY Land currently in industrial use is limited to less than 600 acres, approximately 0.5 percent of the total land area in East County. "Heavy" Industry (104 acres) includes a wide range of industrial and manufacturing uses, some of which could provide substantial amounts of traffic, noise and fumes. The only existing use of this type is the E. I. DuPont plant near Bridgehead Road; the majority of the existing industry in the Planning Area is of the "light" industry type. "Light" industry (137 acres) is characterized by high performance characteristics, including low levels of noise and fumes, low land coverage and moderate traffic generation. Uses include manufacturing, wholesaling and storage among others. An additional 350 acres are devoted to mineral extraction on agricultural lands. The Plan provides approximately 550 acres of land for heavy industry in the northwest corner of the Planning Area. This area reflects the existing DuPont plant, provides for expansion of the industrial community, and is a logical extension of the Antioch-Pittsburg industrial complex to the west of the Planning Area. Light industrial areas are designated in the Planned Communities (approximately 90 acres) to provide local employment opportunities and promote the expansion of the economic base of the community. Existing light industry outside the designated areas will be retained but may not be expanded. 26 00()0,10 i • PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC Public and Semi-public uses include major publicly owned lands and facilities, and those owned by semi-public agencies. Public/Semi-Public areas outside the Planned Communities include: Deer Creek and Dry Creek water retention basins, Marsh Creek 'Reservoir and John Marsh Home, Byron Boys Ranch and the Byron Sewage Treatment facility. HOUSING ELEMENT In 1970, the Planning Area population of 13,900 was housed in 4,900 dwelling units with an average size of 2.9 persons per household. Of the total housing units, approximately 80 percent were single family dwelling units, 9.5 percent multiple family units, and the remaining 10.5 percent mobile homes. In 1975 the Planning Area population of 15,200 was housed in 5,900 dwelling units with an average household size of 2.57 persons. Approximately 76 percent of the total housing units were single family dwelling units, 10.8 percent multiple family units, and the remaining 13.3 percent mobile homes and group quarters. Approximately 65 percent of the dwelling units are owner-occupied. The 35 percent in renter occupied units are mostly in single family residences and mobile homes. The data indicate a slight shift in the housing mix from single family homes to multiple family units and mobile homes, a shift which most likely is related to housing costs and the limited incomes of the increasingly aging population of the Planning Area. It is expected that housing needs of East County residents will be met partially through programs developed for all of the County pursuant to the Housing Element of the General Plan, though additional programs applicable mainly to rural areas (such as mortgage assistance of the Farmer's Home Administration) will also be utilized. 27 • CIRCULATION ELEb1ENT The Circulation Element of the Area General Plan designates a transportation system to provide for the efficient movement of people and goods throughout the Planning Area and provide East County with links to the surrounding region. ROAD SYSTEM The existing road system in East County consists primarily of County roads laid out in a typical grid system oriented north-south and east-west along section lines. The basic road pattern was established in the early 1930's to serve the agricultural needs of the area and has changed little since then. The Area General Plan calls for few major additions to the roadway system. The majority of new roads and road improvements will be provided through the development process by frontage and off-site improvement requirements. Freeways Freeways are high-speed limited access traffic arterials designed to facilitate the movement of large traffic volumes (40,000 and more trips per day), between regions and to provide connections for major development centers to a regional circulation facility. Consideration was given to the establishment of a Freeway alignment to connect San Joaquin County with existing Freeway Route 4 near the Antioch Bridge. However, state highway financing policies indicate that funds for such a facility will not be available for a time period exceeding the Planning Period, and the retention of a large-parcel development pattern in all but a few areas of East County renders it unnecessary to protect any alternative route alignments. A freeway is, therefore, not designated in this Plan. Major Highways The function of a major highway is to expedite movement between relatively distant points of a community or region. These facilities generally have no access control but provide for through traffic and large volumes of vehicular traffic (20,000 trips per day and more). A major east-west route through the Planning Area is currently provided by State Route 4. In addition to carrying local traffic, Highway 4 is the major facility linking East County communities with Stockton, central and west County and the greater San Francisco Bay Area. The Plan recognizes that growth in the Planning Area and through-traffic will not require new major highways. Instead the Plan provides for straightening existing Highway 4 in Oakley and for road widening and improvement. Further, since Highway 4 creates both a noise and traffic problem where it traverses the communities of Brentwood and Oakley, it is recommended that alternate routes in or around these communities be studied. 28 000040 Although the State has no formal plans for new major highways in East County, highway corridors are noted by the State along Vasco Road and Byron Highway and for a possible Highway 4 relocation. Arterials The arterial system connects major traffic generators within communities with each other by carrying traffic from collector streets to major highways and freeways. Arterials form a through traffic network carrying intermediate distance trips and should be designed to accommodate moderate speeds. Traffic volumes on arterials generally range from 17,000 to 22,000 trips per day. Arterials in the Planning Area are shown on the Circulation Element Map. The majority of the arterials shown follow existing roads in the Planning Area. The routes shown but not presently developed are: the extension of Byron Highway to connect to Bethel Island Road, the extension of Laurel Road from Empire Road to Hillcrest avenue, the extension of Eden Pains Road to Highway 4, the extension of O'Hara Avenue to the SPRR right-of-way, and the extension of Sand Hill Road from Highway 4 to the SPRR right-of-way. Collectors Collector streets serve internal traffic movements in the Planning Area and serve to collect traffic and carry it to arterials, and to shopping centers, schools and other traffic generators. Collectors generally carry between 9,000 and 12,000 trips per day. Except for arterials and minor streets, nearly all the remaining existing County roads in East County function as collectors and also constitute the future collector network. No new collectors are provided for by this Plan. Minor Streets Minor streets provide access to individual parcels of land and other elements in the road network and thus serve only local traffic. The demand for minor streets usually coincides with new development, and they are usually provided by developers in conformance to the County Subdivision Ordinance. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Existing public transportation in the Planning Area is provided primarily through five daily inbound and outbound trips by BARTD buses terminating at Brentwood, and two daily scheduled Greyhound Bus Lines trips through the area. Special van service to hospital patients and handicapped is also provided by private or non- profit groups. The provision of transit to the East County is considered highly desirable. A number of studies have analyzed transit needs, potential service by bus and van systems, and potential routing. The extension of BARTD rail service to the area is not deemed feasible during the Planning Period. 29 East County Circulation Plan to 1990 MAJOR HIGHWAY 4 ARTERIAL PROPOSED ARTERIAL Q: A L d Gateway Blvd 4 State Hwy � C - Cvnress. aid Laurel Rd \ '¢ ' Delia Road - Lone Tree WayWj Q LI N, = Balfour Road ' \ '\ 1 C z \ marsh Cree,' aid \ State Hwy 4 PF Camino Diablo Road\ 'Qod a \ \ -v\. 0 20,000' �. 00001!0 An East County Transit program has been established through a joint powers agreement between the County and the Cities of Antioch, Brentwood and Pittsburg. This program is operated by the Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority which contracts with AC Transit (Alameda Contra Costa Transit District) for limited bus service within the City of Brentwood as well as to link the Brentwood area with the Antioch area and westerly as far as Nest Pittsburg. The East County transit program is also integrated with the present BART bus service in East County by providing feeder bus service to BART express buses. The County has applied for a Rural Demonstration Grant to fund a two year demonstration program which could result in more comprehensive transit service within the Planning Area than that planned in the East County transit program. This service will link the Bethel Island, Knightsen, Brentwood, Byron and Oakley areas with the Antioch area and will be particularly aimed at providing transit service to the elderly, handicapped and minority groups for shopping and medical trips. If successful, this service could eventually be absorbed by the Eastern County Transit Authority. RAIL TRAFFIC Two railroad lines serve the East County area; the Santa Fe (ATSF) through Oakley and Knightsen, and the Southern Pacific (SP) through Brentwood and Byron. Passenger service is not provided to the Planning Area. No change in the status of rail traffic is provided in the Plan. In addition to carrying agricultural products from East County to market, the railroad rights-of-way provide the potential for recreation trail routes. 30 OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT The legislation requiring an Open Space Element of the General Plan defines open space as any parcel of essentially unimproved land or water area used for the preservation and production of natural resources, outdoor recreation and public health and safety. The East County Area General Plan Open Space/Conservation Element identifies the following categories of open space: Recreation Water Areas Together the above Open Space/Conservation categories contain approximately 5,660 acres of land and water area in the Planning area. RECREATION This designation on the Land Use Map includes Frank's Tract State Park and Byron Hot Springs. The John Marsh Home is designated as a "Public and Semi- Public" use, but has the potential of becoming a full-fledged park. The publicly owned parks, recreation areas, public utility rights-of-way, and managed watershed lands are defined as permanent open space. WATER AREAS Much of the Planning Area is part of the San Joaquin and Sacramento River Delta and as a result is laced with a variety of waterways including sloughs, rivers and lakes. Much of the water area is contained in Frank's Tract (a flooded island), Clifton Court Forebay (a man-made holding facility) and Marsh Creek Reservoir: In addition, there exist numerous sloughs connecting the San Joaquin and Old Rivers with the larger bodies of water and with each other. The waterways open for public use and not in private ownership are defined as permanent open space. 31 COMMUNITY FACILITIES ELEMENT All development, be it rural or urban in character, requires a number of supporting facilities and services. These facilities and services range from schools, recreation, fire and police protection to various types of water supply and sewage disposal, roads and flood protection. The type and level of facilities and services varies both by area and density of development; farms located on 100 acre parcels will require a different size of roads and pavement than a residential development with parcels of 10,000 square feet each; septic tanks can serve acreage, but not a house in a small-lot subdivision. Community facilities in the context of this Plan, thus, include the variety of facilities which are needed in relation to the kind and amount of development in the area. These services and facilities may be supplied by a public or semi-public agency. Every community must have a water supply, a means of disposing of sewage, schools, utilities and other community facilities. Each of these facilities has an ultimate design capacity which limits its service capability. As an area experiences urban growth the demand for facilities increases, and existing facilities become outmoded or do not have an adequate capacity to meet the demand. This element establishes the need for facilities to serve the land use and circulation patterns outlined in the Area General Plan. Services provided by public entities are analyzed in this Plan since they are directly related to the functions of local government, while the facilities and services provided by non-profit or other agencies are expected to be supplied as the need arises. Nlanv of the facilites in the Planning Area are utilized at or beyond their design capacities, and'-will require expansion to meet the needs of the future development provided for in this Plan. Multiple purpose use of facilities is suggested to the maximum extent feasible, since it provides for more efficient use of tax revenues and avoids duplication of effort by a variety of agencies. Schools, park and recreation facilities are most frequently designed for multiple use, though this principle applies also to recreation trail development and other public works such as drainageways, utility rights-of-way, commercial areas, scenic areas and historic la-ndmarks. The Area General Plan projects the demand for the following facilities based on population increases inherent in the Plan policies for the Planning Area: Educational Facilities Recreation Facilities Health Services and Facilities Utilities and Flood Control Facilities Protection Services and Facilities OOOWO 32 Community D Facilities 0 c a, M Qt a ❑ State H»y 4 ❑ ` CYFrest Rd N 1'•2Q000' Lone Tree Way\ � r \ � ti a w A.T.&S.F. R.R. cc y Brentwood Ave CO \ a' \ Afarsh Creek Rd.\ \ State Hwy 4 �a Camino \ LEGEND cP"`R '?,=- \ • ° � C\ • Grammar Schools C ■ Nigh School \\ 0 Libraries ❑ Fire Houses 1 Boys Ranch `•, c y' EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES Schools The East Contra Costa area is served by four elementary school districts: the Brentwood, Byron, Knightsen and Oakley School Districts. The Liberty Union High School District, with a high school in Brentwood and La Paloma Continua- tion High School located on Lone Tree Way, serve the total Planning Area. Existing schools are Brentwood Elementary, Edna Hill Elementary and Garin Elementary, all in Brentwood; Byron Elementary in Byron; Knightsen Elementary in Knightsen; and Gehringer Elementary and Oakley Middle Schools in Oakley. Total school enrollment in the Planning Area increased from 3,260 in 1962 to 4,250 students in 1975. Every school, with the exception of Liberty High School and Garin School, is presently operating below its design capacity. Percentage of space utilization ranges from a low of 76 percent at the Oakley School to a high of 103 percent at the Garin School. Planned growth pursuant to the Area General Plan will increase the number of school age children in the area by an estimated 7,000 to a total enrollment of 11,250 by 1990. This increase will require the construction of new facilities to provide additional student capacity. In addition, portions or all of some East County Schools will need replacement by the end of this Planning Period. Within the Brentwood Union School District all but two classrooms of Brentwood School and two-thirds of Edna Hill Elementary will need to be replaced. The Byron Elementary School will need replacement or renovation before that time as a result of a projected sharp enrollment increase caused by development at Discovery Bay. : The Knightsen Elementary School, at most, will require replacement of its main building. -.Barring major school expansion, the Oakley Elementary School will require replacement by 1990, as will two-thirds of the facility at Liberty Union High School. The nearest institution of higher learning is Los Lbledanos Community College, a two-year college located in the City of Pittsburg. Libraries East County is served by three libraries located in Brentwood, Byron and Oakley and operated by the Contra Costa County Library System. On the basis of population related standards of the American Library Association, the present library facility in Brentwood is inadequate to serve existing demand. However, all libraries benefit from special County library services, including a central book depository, reference system and bookmobile service, so that the service level delivered is higher than statistics indicate. The County Library System considers that present facilities are inadequate to _ serve future growth of the Planning Area. New branch facility construction is contigent upon future policy decisions. One additional branch library facility may be required to serve a population of 20,000 if existing supplementary library services are continued. 0000,10 33 RECREATION FACILITIES Parks Two large State operated recreation areas are located at the north and south extremes of the Planning Area. Frank's Tract State Park, located in the northerly portion, covers an area of 3,310 acres -- mostly open water. The park is maintained for water-oriented recreational activities such as fishing and boating. Clifton Court Forebay, developed jointly by the Department of Water Resources and Department of Fish and Game, is located in the southeastern portion of the Planning Area. While not a park in the true sense, the Forebay covers 2,200 acres of water and 8 miles of shoreline and is used for bank fishing and water fowl hunting. Approximately 100 acres of adjacent dry land are also available for the development of facilities. A short distance outside the Planning Area are located three major parks --frit. Diablo State Park (under the jurisdiction of the State Parks and Recreation Department), and Contra Loma Regional Park and Coal Mines Regional Park (under the jurisdiction of the East Bay Regional Parks District). Only three local park facilities exist in the entire Planning Area. These are Brentwood Park (a neighborhood park of 4 acres), a tot lot on Curtis Drive, also in Brentwood, and a 3 acre park developed on part of the Oakley School grounds. Recreational features include playgrounds, playfields and picnic facilities. Neighborhood parks, playgrounds and tot lots should be provided in the Planned Communities when urban density development is undertaken on the basis of full utility services. Two proposed wildlife areas in East County are designated by the Resources Agency of California. One is a wildlife management area located at Big Break and the other a wildlife and scenic area in the vicinity of Old River near Holland Tract and Quimby Island. Both areas will serve as wildlife refuges and low use- intensity recreation areas. Snort Fishing The waters of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta support rich and important fishery resources. Fishery studies usually relate to the entire Delta, not to specific counties. Although the Planning Area encompasses only about 10 percent of the Delta Region, the recreational and fisheries value of the Planning Area is enhanced by the presence of three large bodies of water; Big Break, Frank's Tract and Clifton Court Forebay . Commercial fishing in the Delta has been closed since 1953 due to conflicts with sports fishing. However, the king salmon which migrate through the Delta from upstream spawning grounds account for approximately eighty percent of the State's eight million pound commercial marine salmon catch. Other sports fish in. the Delta are the American shad (an introduced species), and white sturgeon. Delta resident game fish are striped bass, white catfish, brown bullheads, black crappies, blue gill and largemouth bass. 00001,10 34 Marinas Thirty marinas or harbors exist in the Punning Area, all privately owned. They vary in size, services and facilitie-z; s,-)---e moor less than 20 boats and offer few services, while other moor over 30( a:)d offer a wide range of services and facilities including boat repair, carr• picnic sites, air strips, laundromats, grocery stores, boat rentals, restau- e-c. The quality of the marinas varies, many offer facilities in good rt;-a -, protection from high winds, deep, wide channels for ease of access, competent service crews, etc., have very few vacancies and often have waiting lists. The Plan assumes development of additional marina facilities along the recreation waterways in response to market demand. Historic Sites The major historic site in East County is the John Marsh Home onMarsh Creek Road. The County owns the home site which covers more than 7 acres. It was purchased by the Cowell foundation and subsequently deeded to the County in 1960. The site is on the National Historic Register and is of historic significance. HEALTH SERVICES AND FACILITIES The nearest hospital facilities serving the Planning Area are Delta Memorial (a 53 bed private hospital in Antioch) and Pittsburg Community (a 78 bed hospital in. Pittsburg). The Brentwood Health Center, a semi-public health facility is also located in the Planning Area. This clinic facility provides medical, psychiatric, pediatric and prenatal care' services. The clinic is staffed by County personnel and doctors as well as a doctor from the National Health Service. The County Health Department provides periodic clinics, public health nursing services and sanitation services to the area. Private medical resources are limited in the Planning Area. It is serviced by three physicians, three dentists and one optometrist. Two private rest homes, Lone Tree Rest Haven (50 beds) and A and R Rest Home (12 beds) are located within the Planning Area. The small and scattered existing population of the East County area does not warrant a hospital facility of its own, according to the hospital standards of the Bay Area Comprehensive Health Planning Council. These standards state that a remote low density area warrants one 50-bed facility and that a health facility planning area with a 50,000 to 70,000 population warrants a 75-bed facility. UTILITIES AND FLOOD CONTROL FACILITIES Water Facilities Treated Water Supply The City of Brentwood Water District and the Oakley County Water District are the two major suppliers of treated water in the East County area. The remainder of the area is served by private wells. 000w U 35 Oakley County Water District. At present, the Oakley County Water District services the Oakley residential area and the industrial area north of Oakley. Approximately 6,000 acres are served by the district, of which 600 acres are under water in Big Break. The present population of the district is approximately 2,600; there are 800 connections, with over 75 percent of the total yearly water demand supplied to one industry (E. I. DuPont). Source of water for the District treatment plant is the Contra Costa Canal. The plant capacity is 4.3 million gallons per day (MGD), and total treated water storage is 480,000 gallons. The facility operates with excess capacity and could serve an additional 11,800 persons. If heavy industrial water demand stays at present levels, and light industrial demand increases only slightly and is thus comparable to residential demand, the future increase in water demand pursuant to the Area General Plan would not be large enough to require a new facility in the Oakley County Water District. City of Brentwood. Although the City of Brentwood was incorporated in 1948, it did not supply its own water until 1966 when it purchased Contra Costa Water District #1. Today, the population of Brentwood numbers over 3,700 and the service area is approximately 1,190 acres. Users must be located within the city limits or must be annexed to the city. Applicants for water service must agree to pay all off-site and on-site improvements costs for water facilities. Brentwood is the only municipal district in the County which relies solely upon wells for its water supply. Water is drawn from three wells, ranging between 30 and 200 feet in depth, and is used without additional treatment. The system has an available water storage of 150,00 gallons. Other Suppliers. Twenty-four small water companies with over 800 connections supply water to the Byron-Knightsen plain and Bethel Island area. The remaining demand is supplied by individual wells, and it is expected that future low density residential growth will also be serviced by private wells. Wells are an unreliable source of water in many parts of East County, since the ground water table fluctuates and lowers in dry years. When development occurs, in areas such as Bethel Island, a public water supply will be required to allow for connections as required by the development criteria for residential use described by this Plan. Untreated Water Supply Three agencies in the Planning Area deliver raw water for irrigation and other uses; the Contra Costa County Water District, the East Contra Costa Irrigation District and the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District. Contra Costa County Water District. The Contra Costa County Water District was formed in 1936 to contract with the Bureau of Reclamation for the purchase and distribution of water from the Contra Costa Canal unit of the Central Valley Project. The District acts primarily as a wholesaler in the Planning Area, leaving local distribution to its customers and to its own Treated Water Division. Customers in the Planning Area include the Oakley County Water District and agricultural water users. The district contains a large portion of the Planning Area and could develop a surface water supply for additional lands. East Contra Costa County Irrigation District. The East Contra Costa County Irrigation District, formed in 1925, services 19,000 acres of agricultural lands in the Brentwood area. The district diverts 37,000 acre feet a year from Indian Slough in the Delta. In addition, it maintains wells which produce 2,500 acre feet a year for irrigation and 2,500 acre feet for water table control. Bryon-Bethany Irrigation District. The Byron-Bethany Irrigation District, formed in 1919, serves 17,000 acres of agricultural lands in Contra Costa, Alameda and San Joaquin Counties. A 10,500 acre portion of the district service area lies in Contra Costa. The District diverts 39,500 acre feet a year from the Delta slough region, of which 22,000 are supplied to lands in Contra Costa County. A drainage system returns spent water to the Delta at Indian Slough. Sanitary Sewer Facilities Five sanitary sewer districts in the East County (Brentwood, Byron, County District #15, County District #19 and Oakley Sanitation Districts) presently operate four plants and serve 7,690 persons. Only the Oakley and Brentwood districts serve sizeable populations. Future available plant capacity in the Planning Area varies with construction of the Bethel Island plant. Without this plant, total area sewerage capacity is 14,300 persons, whereas with the Bethel Island plant total sewerage capacity could range from 20,000 to 23,400 persons. Much of the capacity of the Bethel Island plant will be utilized to serve existing development on the island and south of Dutch Slough. City of Brentwood The Brentwood Sanitary District, formed in 1960, was taken over by the City of Brentwood in 1966. The present system serves 3,660 persons and consists of trickling filters and ponds with effluent being discharged for irrigation. The system capacity is approximately 7,500 persons. The City's treatment plant was enlarged and improved in 1971, and currently meets Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. Byron Sanitary District This district serves the small unincorporated town of Byron located in the southeastern portion of the County. The treatment system consists of a septic tank and percolation field and has a capacity for a population equivalent of 1,400 persons. County Sanitation District 15 County Sanitation District 15 was formed in 1967 to serve the recreational areas of Bethel Island and Sand Mound Slough. No system presently exists, however, a plan calls for the construction of a 6 inch force main and treatment facility with a capacity of 100,000 gallons. Treated effluent will be disposed of by sprinkler 33 irrigation. The plant is planned for a capacity of 2,900 persons, but ultimate capacity could potentially be expanded to the equivalent of 6,300 persons. Although these facilities will be built to serve existing development in the District, the plant is capable of being expanded to accept sewage also from planned new development. County Sanitation District 19 This District was organized in 1968 to serve the Discovery Bay development in the Byron Tract area. Construction of the system, including treatment facilities, was finished in 1972. The system presently has capacity for a population equivalent of 3,700 persons. Plans call for expansion of the plant to service the future development of Discovery Bay. Oakley Sanitary District This system provides service to approximately 2,800 persons in the area east of Antioch. Current treatment consists of a septic tank and stabilization ponds; effluent is discharged into Big Break. Plans were made in 1970 for a southwesterly expansion of the District, which would incorporate much of Oakley and lands to the south. In 1974 the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board issued an order providing construction plans for an adequate treatment plant to be completed in 1977. The East/Central Contra Costa County Waste Water Management Program calls for construction of a new treatment plant in Oakley, with an ultimate design capacity able to serve a population of up to 6,000 persons with recent improvements. The policies of the Area General Plan provide for an East County population of 25,000 persons by 1990. If the Bethel Island plant is built, the excess demand of 7,700 persons would have to be serviced by septic tanks or through expansion of the existing sewer treatment facilities. Restrictions for single family housing on septic tanks will require that residential growth serviced by septic tanks must consist of low density lots with a minimum size of one acre where water services are available. Solid Waste Disaosal Facilities The East Countv area is served by two private solid waste disposal service companies. Both dispose of solid waste at the Pittsburg dump site. This land fill operation consists of 25 acres and will be filled in between 3 to 5 years. Alternate disposal sites have not been selected, though there is a possibility that the old Antioch site, which is presently inoperable, may be reopened for limited use. The County's Solid Waste Management Plan contemplates Countywide collection of solid waste for disposal at a facility of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, which would also serve East County. Semi-Public Facilities Telephone, electric power, and natural gas supplies are provided in East County by private companies upon consumer request. 39 Telephone The Pacific Telephone Company maintains five business offices in the East County area. There are few constraints on the ability of the telephone company to expand its services, and no difficult is anticipated in serving the land use pattern designated in this Area General Plan. Electric Power Electricity in the East County area is provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (P.G. do E.). Five generating plants sited in Contra Costa County at Avon, Antioch, Martinez, Oleum and Pittsburg collectively supply power to the County. The two newest plants, Antioch and Pittsburg, proviue over 90 percent of the total output of all five plants. The Antioch and Pittsburg plants are being converted from natural gas to a crude oil for fuel, the remaining plants continue to operate on natural gas. Appropriate service can be provided to all development proposed in the Plan. Natural Gas Supply Pacific Gas and Electric Company also provides natural gas to the East Contra Costa County area. Supplies of natural gas are becoming increasing limited, and more restrictive policies are being applied to the extension of service to new users. While most new development of urban districts will probably continue to be eligible to receive natural gas, low density areas and certain non-residential uses may have to rely on alternate energy sources. Flood Control Facilities The large number of waterways and low ground elevation render many areas in the East County subject to drainage problems and result in the need for major flood control and storm drainage facilities. The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is the lead agency for constructing flood control and drainage works in the County. They have defined the Planning Area in four flood plain zones, and have prepared zone plans for flood control management. The southernmost watershed and flood control zone in the County is the Marsh- Kellogg Watershed which extends from ,fit. Diablo's eastern slopes to the border of the Delta region east of Byron. Prior to recent improvements along ,Marsh Creek, the area suffered repeated flooding and sediment problems due to overflow of the creek channel. The resulting standing water would remain until it evaporated, percolated into the ground, or was pumped away, damaging or destroying crops in the area. Four flood control dams and channel improvements have been constructed along Marsh Creek, Day Creek, Deer Creek and Sand Creek. They are provided by Flood Control ?ones 1 and 2 and are designed to control flood waters of a 50-year flood. This level of control is acceptable for agricultural needs and meets the standards of the Contra Costa County Flood Control Department. The future adequacy of existing flood control measures is not related to population levels, but instead to the amount of developed land impervious to water percolation. Since the southern half of East County is not designated for higher density development, there will not be major demand for future expansion of flood control facilities in the Mt. Diablo-Byron region of the watershed. 0000,1_0 40 The second and most critical flood damage area in the East County is the Delta region, which consists of many reclaimed islands below sea level which are separated from surrounding river channels by levees. These islands are subject to levee breaks, which can result in the long-term flooding of entire islands. The Delta is part of the San Joaquin River flood plain which extends from north of Oakley and' Knightsen southeasterly along the eastern boundary of the County. Flood prevention in this area is dependent on the quality of maintenance and design of levees. The levees are managed by two processes which result in differing levels of flood prevention. Direct-agreement levees are engineered and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to agreement with the state, and these levees meet the Corps standards for safety and dependability. The second type of levee, non-project levees, are privately designed and maintained by individual water reclamation districts. No specific maintenance standards or regulations exist for many non-project levees. Levees are currently maintained at levels that range from adequate to inadequate. Problems such as lack of soil compaction, inadequate thickness and unstable slopes are indications of levee instability. The County Flood Control District estimates that an average of four feet of additional height, as well as certain structural improvements, would be needed to bring the inadequate levees up to the U.S. Corps of Engineers standards. PROTECTION SERVICES AND FACILITIES Fire .. Fire protection in the Planning Area is provided primarily by four fire districts: Bethel Island, Brentwood, Byron and Oakley Fire Protection Districts. The Bethel Island District employs a full-time paid chief and assistant chief; all other staff of the fire companies are volunteers. The major problems of the fire districts relate to the large area to be protected and the unavailability of water. These factors require that much of the equipment be comprised of tankers to transport large water supplies and brush pickup equipment to fight isolated brush and range fires. All fire companies have building sites rated "good" and all but Brentwood have good expansion potential. Fire insurance ratings in the East County are among the highest in the county. The overall rating of the district's manpower, training, local water system and supply all need improvement when compared to the rest of the County. The need for future expansion of fire fighting services is generally related to the type, size and intensity of various land uses rather than population numbers. It is often less expensive to provide fire protection to agricultural, single family and commercial/recreation land; mere expensive for public/semi-public lands; and most expensive for commercial/retail and industrial land. The Area General Plan land use configuration will probably cause the fire _ protection needs of East County to increase as land use will change in intensity from agricultural use to residential and commercial use. It can be assumed that volunteer firemen will continue to serve the area but additional equipment consisting of one pumper and two tankers will be needed by the Oakley Fire OW0,1p 41 District. Major new equipment will probably not be required for the other districts. Eventually, the East County area will probably also have to employ a permanent salaried fire protection staff. 42 0000110 SAFETY ELEMENT Policies of the Countywide Safety Element of the General Plan also apply in the Planning Area. Major policies impacting the development pattern of this Area General Plan include the following: Geologic hazards should be fully considered in the planning of industrial development located just east of Bridgehead Road and north of the Santa Fe Railroad; development of reclaimed lands in the Delta islands and below the 10 foot elevation; on landslide deposits found in small areas near Marsh Creek Reservoir and east of Vasco Road; and on slopes over 26 percent east of Deer Valley Road, north of Marsh Creek Road, and east of Vasco Road. - Flood hazards should be fully evaluated and development containing human habitation avoided in areas where flood protection is required and can not be provided. This would be applicable to reclaimed lands not adequately protected by levees, and areas of creek overflow. Federal Flood Insurance requirements must be satisfied within Flood Hazard Areas"designated by the Federal government or other areas known to be flood prone. Areas subject to flooding by standing water should be drained adequately or not developed other than for agricultural and other open space uses. Hazards related to land uses such as petroleum and chemical industries, oil and gas wells, petroleum product and natural gas pipelines, and the transportation of hazardous materials by road, rail and water should be considered. The Safety Element designates a location near the E. I. DuPont plant east of the Antioch Bridge as a "Safe Stopping Place" for hazardous materials. 000w U 43 SEIS,\,IIC SAFETY ELEMENT The major faults which bisect the East County Planning Area are the Antioch- Davis fault zone and the Midland Fault zone; the former is considered active and the latter potentially active. The Antioch-Davis fault system trends northerly through the hilly western portion of the Planning Area. The Midland fault zone, which trends approximately north-northwest, is believed to extend from the southeastern corner of Contra Costa County northward through the eastern portion of the Planning Area to as far as the Yolo-Solano County lines, near Winters. The policies of the Countywide Seismic Safety Element apply to the Planning Area. The desi-n of development and site preparation should give consideration to the existence of these faults in the Planned Communities around Oakley and Byron, and the Recreation Community on Bethel Island. Seismic ground shaking and liquefaction potential should be considered on Modern Sediments and Younger Alluvium in the East County area. NOISE ELEMENT The Countywide Noise Element indicates that residential areas and schools are adversely impacted by transportation noise (in Oakley and Brentwood). The element provides noise contours for both existing and 1990 noise levels. Development within these contours should consider and be designed to provide appropriate attenuation of noise. Similarly, consideration of noise radiation from stationary sources should be a major determinant for major industrial and commercial development. 44 IMPLEMENTATION The purpose of this chapter is to establish a program for implementing Area General Plan proposals following the Plan's adoption. This Plan is developed for a period of ten years. During this period it may have to be amended to reflect conditions not now anticipated. Further, to insure that the Plan is current and up-to-day, it is recommended that it be reviewed periodically. An annual review is recommended to monitor the progress of the Plan and the Planning Area. The implementation of the plan requires a number of actions. By subject matter these actions include: AGRICULTURE REQUIRED IMPLENIENTATION MEASURES Agricultural Core Area 1. Revise agricultural zoning in the agricultural core to require 10 acre minimum parcel size. Agricultural-Recreation Area 1. Revise agricultural zoning in the Agricultural-Recreational Area to require 20 acre minimum parcel size. 2. Adopt an agricultural zoning ordinance appropriate to the 20 acre minimum. 3. Prepare and administer criteria for development of recreation uses along waterways in the Delta area. Agricultural-Residential area 1. Revise agricultural zoning in the Agricultural-Residential Area to require 5 acre minimum parcel size. Measures Applicable to All Agricultural Land Use Categories 1. Initiate a study on the issue of agricultural parcel size and viability after the adoption of the East County Area General Plan. This study to include the development of criteria for and delineation of areas in which non- conforming lot size prevail. 2. Support state legislation to assess real property taxes on use (agricultural as a "highest and best use") and not potential urban value. 3. Review present zoning districts and rezone where applicable to make zoning reflective of use. OOOOAp 45 4. Revise the designations of the agriculture zoning districts to reflect the minimum allowable parcel size. S. Review Williamson Contract Program as to its effectiveness in achieving stated goals in the East County Planning Area, namely the avoidance of real property tax burden on agricultural uses which forces their conversion to suburban uses. 6. Develop a flood plain zoning ordinance. 7. Limit installation of major roads which will be detrimental to agriculture. 8. Encourage and support State and Federal water reclamation projects and physical development projects which would increase, enhance and protect agricultural lands. 9. Establish a development standards policy for required improvements in each agricultural land use category. PLANNED COMMUNITY REQUIRED IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES 1. Require connection to urban utilities and facilities. 2. Review existing zoning within each Planned Community as to its conformity to Area General Plan land use categories. 3. Revise zoning to reflect use. 4. Develop incremental phasing program for physical growth. S. Establish a development standards policy for each Planned Community. RECREATION COMMUNITY REQUIRED LtiiPLEMENTATION MEASURES 1. Require connection to community sewer and water facilities before urban development is allowed. 2. Require detailed geologic and engineering reports as a prerequisite for considering the approval of public and private development. 3. Revise zoning to reflect use. 4. Develop incremental phasing program for physical growth. S. Establish a development standards policy for the Recreation Community. 46 0000,10 0 ADDITIONAL I,MPLEMENTATION MEASURES 1. Prepare a Specific Plan for Bethel Island to guide its future growth. RECREATION REQUIRED IMPLEMENTATION h,,1EASURES 1. Adopt a local park acreage standards. 2. Provide a public agency mechanism to utilize existing procedures for distributing park dedication fees to appropriate East County areas. ADDITIONAL IMPLEMENTATION Ar1EASURE5 1. Study the potential for an East County Recreation District to provide for the recreation needs of the area. 2. Support and encourage state efforts toward creating a developed State Park at Frank's Tract State Recreation Area. 3. Study waterways for a waterways trail plan. CIRCULATION REQUIRED IMPLE�IIENTATION MEASURES 1. Review road and right-of-way ,widths in East County for compatibility with General Plan development policies. 2. Obtain road widenings and appropriate road improvements as land is developed. 3. Initiate a program of correcting road deficiencies on existing roads. 4. Coordinate road development and improvement programs with local and State agencies. COMMUNITY FACILITIES . REQUIRED IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES 1. Coordinate development and facility requirements with the applicable agencies. 2. Participate in applicable local and regional facility studies. 3. Initiate a study of the multiple use aspects of community facilities directed at maximizing the use of each site. 4. Initiate a countywide community facilities study to insure compatibility of facility development throughout the County. 47 5. Devise a phasing program for the provision of facilities and services. 6. Work closely with the school districts to ensure that adequate funding will be available for the required expansion of services. ADDITIONAL IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES 1. Study the feasibility of consolidating service districts in the Planning Area including school and fire protection districts. 2. Coordinate the activities of service districts. 3. Study and develop a policy to require servicing capability as a condition of development. 000040 48 i p,PPEN©IX A 000010 t TABLE A-1 EAST COUNTY GENERAL PLAN POPULATION BY AGE GROUP, 1960, 1970, 1975 EAST COUNTY 1960 1970 1975 AGE GROUP Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 0 to 9 2,520 21 .6% 1 2,399 17.81X> 2,287 15.0% 10 to 19 2, 149 18.5 2,868 20.6 3, 198 21 .0 20 to 44 3,652 31 .5 41025 28.9 4,760 31 .3 45 to 64 2,366 20.4 3, 166 22.5 3,270 21 .5 65 and Over 931 8.0 1 ,481 10.7 1 ,713 11 .2 TOTAL 11 ,618 100.0015 13,889 100.0% 15,228 100.0% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 1975 Contra Costa County Special Census. C Q O O fry TA13LE A-2 EAST COUNTY GENERAL PLAN COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION BY RACE, 1960, 1970, 1975 EAST COUNTY Percent Percent Percent Race 1960 of Total 1970 of Total 1975 of Total • White 8,.484 73.0% 9,550 68.8% 11 ,944 78.4% Black 19 .2 17 . 1 67 .5 Spanish Surname 2,827 24.3 3,751 27.0 2,653 17.4 Other 288 2.5 571 4. 1 564 3.7 TOTAL 11 ,618 100.0% 13,899 100.0% 15,228 100.0% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 1975 Contra Costa County Special Census. O O O C e .a TABLE A-3 FAST COUNTY CWNERAI. PLAN SUMMARY UI• HOMING SI'A1'IS1•ICS APItII., 1410 CENSI34 FItAC f I1OUS1NC, 3010 3020 3031 3032 3040 TOTAL. COUNTY TOTAL IfJI)IC'ATcfltl Number Percent Number Perlt•llt Number Percent Number Percent Nmml,er Percent Number Vertt.111 Numl.er Percent 1'olell)wrllu Unrta 1,117 10G.0'A, 1,470 101).GA. 1,102 100.0% 655 1GO.0`.16 448 100.0116 4,852 U)(MA, 175,384 100.0% Year 120,11141 1,167 44.2 1,446 44.8 1,017 97.7 650 94.2 443 48.9 4,803 98.9 178,312 99.4 Seasonal 4 Migratory 10 U.8 4 0.2 25 2.) 5 0.8 5 1.1 49 1.1 72 0.1 t2L4'4rncd 827 70,3 1,411 96.0 1,032 93.6 629 96.0 426 95.1 4,325 84.1 172,951 96.4 Ownir Occupied 650 78.6 874 62.) 602 54.6 417 66.3 252 59.1 2,800 64.7 120,418 69,4 Rosier o[cupied 1// 21.4 532 37.1 430 29.0 212 33.7 174 40.9 1,525 35.3 52,933 )0.6 Vacant linits 150 29.7 59 4.0 70 6.4 26 4.0 22 4.9 52/ 10:1 5,433 1.1 mvill.mt Ifutrx! Valor, $21,3160 $17,39{1 $15,500 $19,200 $18,200 $18,9r)G $25,700 Medias Contract Itent $86 $66 $69 $66 $72 $7G $124 Sources I"repated lrum 1970 Census l3uream data by Cantra Costa Comity Planning Deparnne>it, 0 0 i?� TABLE A-4 EAST- COUNTY GENERAL PLAN HOUSING INVENTORY, 1970-1975 Multi-Family Multi-Family Units • Census Single Family (2-4 in structure) (5+ in building) Mobile Hornes Tota! Units Tract 4/1/70 4/10/75 4/1/70 4/10/75 4/1/70 4/10/75 4/1/70 4/10/75 4/1/70 4/10/75 3010 821 829 82 124 8 0 237 231 1, 148 1 ,208 3020 1 ,241 1,395 118 95 34 44 135 258 1 ,528 1 ,793 3031 969 1 , 155 53 93 65 183 9 32 1 ,096 1 ,464 3032 500 664 70 72 9 8 75 161 654 905 3040 350 448 25 21 -- -- 62 81 437 550 Total 3,881 4,491 348 405 116 235 518 763 4,863 5,920 Percent of Total 79.81% 75.9% 7. 16% 6.8% 2.39% 4.0% 10.65% 12.8% 100.0% 100.0% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, • 1975 Contra Costa County Special Census. Q O C TABLE A-5 EAST COUNTY GENERAL PLAN POVERTY LEVEL AND HOUSING INDICATORS APRIL, 1970 East County. Total Families 3,831 Families Below Poverty Level 506 Percent of Total Families Below Poverty Level 13.2% Total Families in Housing Authority Units 210 Percent of Poverty Level Families in Housing Authority Units 41.5% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 0000A0 TABLE A-6 EAST COUNTY GENERAL PLAN CONTRA COSTA HOUSING AUTHORITY UNITS JANUARY 1 , 1970 to JANUARY 1, 1974 TOTAL OCCUPIED UNITS Area 1/1/70 1/1/74 CONVENTIONAL HOUSING Brentwood Area 44 44 Oakley 30 30 Oakley (elderly only) 40 40 TOTAL 114 114 LEASED HOUSING Oakley Area 96 137 TOTAL 96 137 TOTAL EAST COUNTY 210 251 Source: Contra Costa County Housing Authority. 000040 TABLE A-7 EAST COUNTY GENERAL PLAN EXISTING SCHOOL FACILITIES GRADES DISTRICT SCHOOL LOCATION SERVED Liberty Union Liberty High School Brentwood 9 to 12 • Brentwood Union Brentwood Brentwood K to 5 Edna Hill Brentwood 5 to 8 Garin Brentwood 4 to 5 Byron Union Byron Byron K to 8 Knightsen Union Knightsen Knightsen K to 8 Oakley Union Oakley Oakley 4 to 8 Gehringer Oakley K to 3 ' Source: Contra Costa County Department of Education. APPENDIX B TABLE B-1 EAST COUNTY GENERAL PLAN EXISTING LAND USE (1974) LAND USE CATEGORY ACRES RESIDENTIAL 2,223 Single Family and Related 1,999 Multiple Family and Related 36 klobile Home 61 �tilobile Home Park 114 Group Quarters 13 COM�MERC1AL 490 Retail Business and Related 235 Commercial/Recreation 255 INDUSTRIAL 591 Light Industry 137 Heavy Industry 104 Mineral Extraction 350 PUBLIC/SELII-PUBLIC 716 Public/Semi-Public 213 Utilities 503 OPEN SPACE 111 ,703 Agricultural 99,201 Intensive 56,549 Extensive 42,652 Vacant 8,860 Water 3,312 Recreation 330 OTHER 1,829 Roads and Streets 1,618 Railroad 211 TOTAL ACREAGE 117,552 Source: Contra Costa County Planning Department. 0010,1.0 TABLE B-2 EAST COUNTY GENERAL PLAN PRIME SOILS IN AGRICULTURE CORE SOIL TYPE CLASS Brentwood Clay Loam, Wet (Bc) 1-1 Brentwood Clay Loam, 0-2 Percent Slope (Bb) Ilw-2 Capay Clay, 0-2 Percent Slope (CaA) IIs-5 Capay Clay, Wet, 0-2 Percent Slope (CbA) IIw-5 Clear Lake Clay (Cc) IIs-5 Rincon Clay Loam, 0-2 Percent Slope (RbA) IIs-3 Rincon Clay Loam, Wet, 0-2 Percent Slope (RcA) IIw-2 Sorrento Silty Clay Loam (Sm) I-1 Sorrento Silty Clay Loam, Sand Substratum IIs-0 Sycamore Silty Clay Loam ' (So) I-1 Sycamore Silty Clay Loam, Clay Substratum (Sp) IIw-2 Source: U.S. Soil Conservation Service. App�NplX C ' TABLE C-1 EAST COUNTY GENERAL PLAN EXISTING SCHOOL FACILITIES, 1975 Capacity and Utilization building and Site Fall, 1975 Year quilt Number Site Reported District Enroll- Percent and Last of Sire Reported Expansion Recreation and Facility Grades Capacity ment Utilization Addition Classrooms(Acres) Condition Potential Facilities Brentwood Union Brentwood K-4 600 595 99 1936/1967 21 7 Fair Poor Ballfield, Courts, Playground Edna Hill 6-8 530 481 90 1948/1967 18 9.5 Good Good l3allfield, Courts, Playground Garin 4-5' 180 187 103 1970/ 6 9.5 Good Good hallfield, Limited Playground Byron Union Byron 1-8 340 276 81 1948/1968 13 10 Good Fair Ballfield, Courts, Playground, Multi-Use Room Knightsen union Knightsen 1-8 300 287 95 1936/1963 10 9 Good Fair Ballfield, Courts, Playground, Swifmning Pool Oakley Unwn Gehriitiger K-3 480 388 80 1958/1972 16 15 Good Good Balltield, Courts, Playground Oakley 4-8 700 553 76 1938/1965 26 15 Good Good Ballfield, Courts, Playground, Gymnasium Liberty Ilniun Liberty 9-12 1,200 19482 101 1945/1971 50 43 Good Good Gymnasium, Pool, Tennis Courts, Athletic Fields Source: Schoul Districts; Complied by Contra Costa County Planning Department. TABLE C-2 EAST COUNTY GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED LAND USE LAND USE ACRES AGRICULTURE 100,603 Agriculture Core 14;583 Agriculture Recreation 31,387 Agriculture Residential 54,638 PLANNED COXIMUNITY 8,381 Oakley/Sand Hill 5,225 Discovery Bay 1,783 Brentwood (Incorporated) and Sphere 1,657 Byron 143 Knightsen 73 RECREATION COMMUNITY 1,607 Bethel Island/Sand Mound Slough 1,607 INDUSTRY 551 RECREATION 719 PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC 245 WATER AREAS 4,941 TOTAL 117,552 e TABLE C-3 EAST COUNTY GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED LAND USE BY COMMUNITY LAND USE (IN ACRES) Single Family Multiple Family Light Public/ Urban/ Residential Residential Industry Commercial Semi-Public Rural Planned Community Oakley/Sand Hill 4,767 :156 21 209 72 Knightsen 39 -- 23 2 9 Byron 105 11 10 9 8 Discovery Bay 1,451 91 -- 134 107 Brentwood 993 -- -- -- -- 664 Recreation Community Bethel Island/Sand Mound Slough 1 ,431 49 -- 127 -- RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EIR FOR EAST CONTRA COSTA AREA GENERAL PLAN The following are responses to written comments on the EIR which were received as of March 8, 1977. The Draft EIR, these comments and responses, hearing testimony and responses as appropriate and other information as necessary will constitute the final EIR which will be considered for certification by the Planning Commission. The following agencies' comments are considered in these responses: A. State Air Resources Board B. State Department of Housing and Community Development C. Contra Costa County Public Works Department D. Letter from the Resource and Conservation District (January 31, 1977) E. Letter from the Association of Bay Area Governments (March 1, 1977) F. Letter from 111r. Gene Stonebarger (March S, 1977) G. Testimony of Mr. Ronald Nunn H. Testimony of Mr. Charles Pringle I. Testimony of Mr. Gerry Leonard 1 000040 I • f RESPONSES TO MEMORANDUM FROM THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD (Dated February 2, 1977) The letter prepared by the Air Resources Board directs the EIR to include guidelines that will define the permissible air pollutant loads that can be emitted id the planning area between now and 1990. The Air Resources Board, although it has considerable expertise in this area, did not formulate any "model Guidelines" for consideration by Contra Costa County. In evaluating the feasibility (and desirability) of adopting such policy guidelines, the ' following points should be stressed: 1. The vast preponderance of air pollutants in the East County originate elsewhere in the San Francisco Bay Area. These contaminants are conveyed by westerly winds into the planning area. It is for this reason that authority and responsibility for regulating emissions have been given to regional state and federal agencies. 2. The County does not presently possess the scientific data base to formulate meaningful air quality policy guidelines for the East County Area. The Area Plan will be updated periodically, as the need arises. If the Air Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA) task force formulates specific recommendations for the East County Area, these recommendations should be given careful review by the Planning staff. Depending on the appropriateness of the specific proposals, the AQMA guidelines should be considered for incorporation into the Area Plan. 3. The proposed East County Area General Plan attempts to direct residential development into "Planned Communities" and attempts to preserve commercial agriculture. The plan does not expand the public } committment to heavy industry. Any applications to establish a heavy I industrial use in the East County area will require approvals and permits t from local, regional, State and Federal agencies. Air quality and water quality are certain to be carefully evaluated, just as they were in the recent application made by Dow Chemical in Solano County. I DWM:lh f 000040 ' ` •�1�1 GOVERNOR'S OFFICE ."� OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH � 1400 TENTH STREET r SACRAMENTO 95814 F£8 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. (916) 44 5-Jr 1 GOV[RNOR .�•�' , ' • February 24 , 1977 Arncl%' P. Jonas FC RoX 0,51 Martinez , CA 94553 SUBJECT: SCF*" 77010403 - FAST CI.E..,Tv ArvA OFMI FRAi. pr p.r Dear Yr . Jonas: This is co certify chat State review of vour environmental documer.c .is comple ce. The results of the State review are attached. You should rescord co the comments as recuired by the California Fnviron— mer.tal Quality Act. You should address vour responses co the commenting agency with a copy to the Clearinghouse. Sincerely, William rT. Kirkham Division Chief State Clearinch ouse (916) 445-0513 6tiGK/pca Atcachment (s) , cc: Williat C. Lockett, Azo Mary Schell, Library • Ren Fellows, DWR 000040 f . L. Frank Goodson Contra Costa County -2- February 2, 1977 The final EIR for the East County Area General Plan needs to include guidelines that will define the permissible air pollutant loads that can be emitted in the planning project area between now and 1990. Without such guidelines it does not appear possible to determine the consistency of the East County Area General Plan Amendment with future air quality goals. The proposed General Plan Amendment area is also located in an Air Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA) where an air quality maintenance plan- ning (AQMP) task force team is -formulating techniques to integrate air quality considerations into planning decision. It is important to - evaluate the ultimate impact of this project on future air quality in Eastern Contra Costa County, present it in the final EIR, and identify the project's compatibility with the above AQMP effort. ` William C. Loc ett, Chief Planning Division cc: W. H. Lewis, Jr. M. Nichols J. Ryerson 000OAo STAT2 OF CALIFORNIA • 0 EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 921 - 10th Street , Sacramento , CA 95814 ( 9 445-0434 FES !5 !Q 1;3 QU 77 February 11 , 1977 Mr. Heinz Fenichel Assistant Director of Advanced Planning Contra Costa County Planning Department P . 0e Box 951 Martinez, CA 94553 c/o State Clearinghouse Subject: SCH77010403 Dear Mr. Fenichel : This department has reviewed through the State Clearinghouse the Environmental Impact Report for the East Co-unty Area General Plan. In general the EIR is informative and well -written . On the subject of housing , it is noted that the planning area has a relatively low median income , an aging housing stock , high levels of overcrowding and renter "overpayment ," and that less than 1 % of undeveloped residentially zoned land is zoned for multifamily use . On page 56 the report states that " the plan does not specifically address the area 's housing problems . " This statement arouses our concern because Section 65302(c) of the Government Code requires general plans to "make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community" . We recommend that the present. EIR deal in greater detail with the social impacts of the area plan' s failure to address the housing issue. In a conversation with Mr. Arnold Jonas on January 28, we learned that a separate housing element of the Contra Costa County General Plan is being developed with an expected completion date in late 1977. We look forward to - this document in the expectation that it will address the County ' s housing needs . If we can be of any help in the development of the housing element , through consultation or review of draft material , please don ' t hesitate to call Bill Murphy at (916) 445-0434. Sincerely , Norvene Foster Chief 00o0 ' cc: ABAG PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Date: February 3, 1977 To: A. A. Dehaesus, Director of Planning Attention: Arnold Jonas, Chief Environmental Assessment From: Vernon L. Cline, Public Works ,Directo By: L. J. Reagan, Assistant Public Works Director, Land Development Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the East County area General Plan. We have reviewed the subject report and offer the following comments for your consideration: ( , The report should include a clear critique of the existing transportation facilities, their projected sufficiency, the future need for additional facilities and available alternatives. Z . An evaluation of the impact of the various alternatives and their mitigating effects should be discussed. The required implementation measurers for the circulation plans are discussed on Page 55. This report should discuss the impact. of these measures. 4.. Mitigating measures for flood control and stream hydrology should be discussed. Drainage Area 290 was recently formed by the Board of Supervisors; others are pending. � . In this, and future EIR's, please identify Mr. Stan Matsumoto as a member of the Public Works Department. NL�i:c ___ v ";a;•�..., 1�L�' :�C7 �^` •�•'Y.: •1.its`M• ) 1�'.iJ_►'A.-k w :>�,:A. �i r' .•J;'q.. �.' �, •!I�.5.... � t •�t �. „ :1'r.r 't ;t� "�. -•L,t:;�l,_,�. . .: � .r• .ty� r i i;ti• 1 ,.v;•;. y r `, �'� : . ,�L'' ti..>:•:r .�A.•i , �S,T.!•w:;P_..1�. :�.... ?'��h:�! L.� �. z 'i t:'. .!'•.,'••T�•.c:):t�• •J )'. r +- J.:•'IS i•'w.r. - "_t.. • I�. � +• c s. •. �. � � r• �t M Tor. �v==�'� i> =�:-.. . �"v� C•�L=a�, �: :.wt.�'a t t:-•t'a C`•'v� .-�- r . � a�' ...7 D. 5552 Clavton Road Concord.California 94521 Telephone: 1415} y071 780 (. - January -31, 1977 CF'(�,� r't,) •,.!`;,'.` yy, �� k `.�` -. � � , •��.c iii f Mr. Darwin Myers �� • _ Contra—Costa County c/o Planning Department P.O. Box 951 ! Martinez, California 94553 SUBJECT: CP 76-43 EAST COUNTY AREA GENERAL PLAN Dear Mr. Myers: The Contra Costa Resource Conservation District has reviewed the above named Environmental Impact Report and has the following comments: It is suggested the map entitled PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN be revised to show existing industrial sand pits along Camino Diablo Road as well as the oil and gas fields which would constitute industrial areas. Page 5, Table 2: It would be well to define vacant land as open space. j Page 6: In the definition of various areas, there seems to be some dis- crepancy in the existing and that being planned, particularly in mineral ex- tractions and water areas. We believe the Wedron-Silica company has been issued a permit for extraction of silica sand on approximately 1200 acres. This, plus other existing sand quarries, and gas and oil fields, would greatly exceed the 350 acres. In water areas, if Clifton Court Forebay and Frank's i Tract are to be included, it would exceed the area indicated for water. Page 10, Flood Control: It should be mentioned that the Marsh.Kellogg Creek Watershed is sponsored by the Contra Costa Resource Conservation Dis- trict and construction funds supplied by the USDA, Soil Conservation Service. The Marsh Kellogg Creek Watershed Plan, Map 1, should be corrected to show the completion of 2 1/2 miles of surface drain ditch north of the city of Brentwood and west of Marsh Creek. Kellogg Creek channel is erroneously indicated as being completed when, in fact, it hasn't been. A side channel reservoir should be indicated on Walnut Avenue south of Brentwood. Page 21, paragraph 2: Should read Classes VI through VIII since there is no Class V in the county. Page 41: It is suggested the 1975 acreage figures be used rather than the 1970 figures in order to give a truer picture of existing conditions. 3 , s 000o"1U . EAST COUNTY AREA GENERAL PLAN CP 76-48 Page 2 Pages 47, 60 and 63: It is suggested the land be taxed on soil' capability class rather than agricultural productivity. As stated, it has the connotation of taxing management ability rather than the natural capability of the soil to produce. i Page 48, Item 3: Change leech to leach. . Page 59, Item C 2: We believe this is the time to consider flood plain management rather than wait until both the channels of Kellogg and Marsh Creek are completely urbanized. Page 60, Item C-4: We suggest the word underlain and simply state the designation agriculture-residential area includes some prime soils. Underlain connotes a subsoil may be prime. Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing this EIR. If we can be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact us. Yours very truly, THOMAS W. HOUIES, District Manager CONTRA COSTA RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT t TWH/m t c 0000"',U r Response to letter from the Resource and Conservation District 1. The proposed plan would do well to include a map which shows gas fields, quarries; and other areas possessing }mown or suspected mineral resources. Reasonable but effective policies for the protection of mineral resources should be incorporated into the East County Area General Plan. 2. The land use designation in Table 2 are not those of the EIR but those of the referenced document. The General Plan Ccamittee restricts the definition of open space in the area plan (page 37) to recreation and water areas and intentionally excludes all agricultural land. 3. The comments of the CCRCD is correct. There is an inconsistency in definitions and or acreage figures. 4. The text of the EIR and Map 1 should be corrected to be consistent with the camients of CCRCD. 5. The text of the EIR should be corrected to be consistent with the cannents of CCRCD. 6. The figures used were those that were available to the writer. 7. The concept of the CCRCD is interesting. The discussion in the EIR was only intended to indicate that as long as agricultural land are taxed on presumed development potential., the preservation of commercial agriculture will be threatened. 8. The text should be corrected to agree with the editorial correction of CCRCD. 9. Agree. 10. The text should be corrected to agree with the editorial correction of CCRCD. 0000110 10 Association of Bay Area Governments Hotel Claremont Berkeley, California 94705 (415)841-9730 � � T March 1 , 1977 -- '� J Mr. Arnold B. Jonas J~` Contra Costa County Planning Department Post Office Box 951 Martinez, California 94533 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report East County Area General Plan Dear Mr. Jonas : Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR for the proposed East County Area General Plan. The following comments are those of staff . and, except where noted, ought not to be construed as official ABAG policy either i•n support of or in opposition to the proposed plan. t In general , the Draf';; EIR, is to be commended for adequately identifying a wide range of local and regional concerns regarding growth in the East County area. As will be indicated in this letter, however, several aspects of the DEIR could be expanded upon to make for a more adequate Final EIR. Regional Interest in the East County Area As recently as July, 1976, the ABAG Executive Board, in its review of the East/Central Contra Costa Wastewater Management program pursuant to OMB Circular A-95, reiterated the regional interest in the East County area. Generally speaking, the Executive Board was concerned regarding the impacts of excessive urban growth in the area. The Executive Board was also mindful of the opportunity--which local offi- cials and East County residents had to address such concerns. As indicated in the Executive Board's approved report and recommendation (A-95 Report ;`82-76 attached): ". . . .the draft East County plan, pending revisions to Brentwood's General Plan and the policies of the county's Local Agency Formation Commission all can provide means to check the spread of low density residential development outside of existing communities." 0000.,1 U Reoresontinrt City ind Coui,ty ;n thr .vi ( r:nic:rr t:.iy Aica -2- The adequacy of the DEIR could be enhanced by a more extensive treatment of regional concerns : o The preservation of prime agricultural land o Adequate commitment to earthquake hazard reduction o Preservation of lands with resource and/or recreational value o Promoting a balance between jobs and housing. The preservation of prime agricultural land The primary objective of the East County plan, i .e. , ". . . .the preservation of productive agricultural lands in the Planning Area on prime soils, so that viable agricultural activity may continue" , is not inconsistent with the Executive Board's concerns. The policies of the East County plan which promote the retention of agricultural uses both respond to consumptive de- mand for food, help keep employed many East County residents as well as have the effect of channelling growth into urbanized areas where public services can be most efficiently provided. As the DEIR indicates, the preservation of agriculture in the East County will be no easy task; land speculation, stater supply/quality problems and inefficient agricultural parcel sizes are making agricultural preservation in the East County difficult at best. Only with appropriate programs that affirmatively address the numerous problems facing agriculture can the East County plan truly meet its primary objective. Staff concurs with the DEIR that the minimum parcel sizes proposed by the pian for the agricultural land uses will not be sufficient to retain and pro- mote agricultural productivity. The DEIR and the Plan ought to be supple- mented to include more viable strategies. These strategies ought to include public service and LAFCO policies which discourage the premature conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses. The DEIR should clarify the relation- ship of the recent sphere of influence change for Brentwood to the agricul- tural core area designation of the East County plan. Adequate commitment to earthquake hazard reduction In January, 1977, with the adoption of "Regional Earthquake Safety Issues and Objectives" the ABAG Executive Board expressed its concern that local governments plan in a way that reduces the potential property damage and loss of life from seismic activity. The entire eastern portion of the Planning Area is underlaid by sediments that are highly susceptible to shaking and settlement during seismic activity. The East County plan per- mits recreational and planned community development (in recreational and planned communities) in high seismic risk areas. In addition, the exten- sive levee system in the Delta lowlands creates the potential fo'r serious flooding problems . Flooding may result from overtopping of a levee or, more likely, from failure of a levee. The situation is exacerbated by substandard levee construction and the location of levees in areas of high seismic activity. -3- The DEIR identifies the possible impact of these conditions on development in the East County. It recognizes that communities such as Discovery Bay and Bethel Island could be severely damaged in the future by either flood- ing, earthquakes or a combination of the two. The DEIR not only questions the appropriateness of locating residEntial development in these hazardous areas but properly suggests that careful design and engineering is needed to minimize the risk. Staff agrees that the proposed plan should more affirmatively address flooding and seismic safety issues by establishing policies and programs for hazard reduction. ABAG's Land Capability Report (attached) may be useful in this regard. Preservation of lands with resource and/or recreational value (e.g., fish, wildlife, vegetation and parkland) The Delta has been altered considerably in the past, primarily by the ex- tensive levee system. Areas that still remain natural or are being allowed to rejuvenate are important in that they are characteristic of the Delta and serve as valuable habitat to native species of wildlife. The DEIR properly identifies deficiencies in the East County plan in not recognizing significant natural resource areas such as those contained in the California Natural Area's Coordinationg Council 's inventory, the State's Delta Master Recreation Plan (1966) and the Delta Advisory Planning Council 's (DAPC) Delta Action Plan (1976) . Contra Costa County has already recognized the value of these natural resource areas by its participation in DAPC. The DEIR could be supplemented to suggest programs for actively preserving such areas. With respect to recreational opportunities, the DEIR recognized, as does the ABAG Critical Area Report (attached) , that the Contra Costa Delta waterways provide recreational opportunities unique in the Bay Area. The East Bay Regional Park District has sho:vn interest in Big Break as a regional park and there may be other areas in the Delta that due to their size, location or unique characteristics would be suitable as parklands. The Delta Action Plan contains an inventory of significant delta recreational resource areas, several of which are within the Planning Area. Although appropriate areas should be made accessible to the public, recreational activities should be managed to guard against overuse, especially since water quality in the Delta is already in a precarious condition due to increased salt water in- trusion and high boron content. The DEIR could be enhanced by identifying future acquisition and management options. Promoting a balance between jobs and housing The impacts associated with the separation of housing from jobs were perhaps the most significant concerns of the ABAG Executive Board- in its review of U00U.,1 U -4- the East/Central Contra Costa County l-;astewater program: "Lackino significant new employment opportunities (on a large scale) in the study area and without transit service, increased commuting and attendant air quality deterioration would be in conflict with regional plans which encourage decreased commuting and location of net: residential development close to employment centers." (Grant File -782-76. ) Generally speaking, it is the more urbanized areas of the region (such as the East Bay Plain and the Peninsula) and not the East County area into which re- gional policies seek to channel major new residential growth. This does not mean to say that no housing should be built in East County. Clearly, some new housing is needed to relieve existing overcrowding, to off- set low vacancy rates and to replace substandard units which cannot be reha- bilitated and must be demolished for public health, safety and welfare reasons. New units will also be needed to accommodate the formation of new households among the existing population during the planning period. Housing unit in- crease attributable to the latter factor, however, must be related to the changing demographic profile of the East County. If, because of the lack of educational and employment opportunities, those within the household forma- tion years continue to relocate out of the East County area, then the need for new housing units for these groups will be correspondingly reduced. It is not housing per se but housing built to accommodate large numbers of people who will not work in the East County area--people whose housing needs could be met closer to the employment centers on the Bay Area that regional policies seek to guard against. As the DEIR indicates , the implications of the East County developing as a suburban based community where residents have to commute long distances to work are profound: "Increased traffic will deteriorate air quality which could threaten agricultural productivity. Residents will have to assume a consid- erable tax burden to support community services. Urban sprawl is encouraged. The rural character of the East County area as an agricultural service center will be irrevocably changed". . . ."Long commutes are not energy efficient and the single family home is the least energy efficient housing type." Concerns like those above helped form the basis of the recommendations made by the Executive Board in the East/Central Contra Costa County Wastewater review: RECOMMENDATION - 1 ) that the capacity of the treatment plant at Discovery Ray be reduced to be more consistent with the -0" population projec- tion to mitigate the impacts of suburban sprawl in the East County area; -3- 2) that the East/Central Contra Costa County Wastewater Management Agency seek commitments from affected local communities, Contra Costa County, the Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission and special districts to limit growth in unurbanized areas (e.g. hook-up restrictions along the Oakley-Bethel Island interceptor) ; and 3) that members of the East/Central Contra Costa County 4Iastewater Management Agency participate in the Air Quality Maintenance Plan of ABAG's Environmental Management Program. Y The DEIR could be enhanced by indicating the degree to which the East County plan as proposed is consistent with the Executive Board's recommendations. Staff feels that plan alternatives such as D7 and D4 (pages 63 & 64) which imply that land for residential development would be released at a rate com- mensurate with employment growth in the East County are the most consistent with the Executive Board's recommendations. The proposed plan's policies which call for phasing development based on urban service availability could support these alternatives. Agreements with the Contra Costa County LAFCO and special districts providing urban services could be secured in conjunction with these agencies' review of the proposed plan. Should any questions arise regarding the above, please do not hesitate to call . SP'ucerely, �21 /Nab John H. McKoy Director of Planning and Programming Attachments 00oodo i Grant File No. 82-76 Executive Board: 7/15/76 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS EXECUTIVE BOARD REPORT GRANT APPLICATION SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION PROJECT IDENTIFICATION Applicant: East/Central Contra Costa County Wastewater Management Agency Program: Construction Grants for Wastewater Treatment works Environmental Protection Agency Project: East/Central Contra Costa County Wastewater Management Facilities Received: July 30, 1974 Cost: Total Funds $40,504,000; Federal Grant Request $26,357,000; State $4,393,000; Local Funds $9,754,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project would provide facilities for treating and disposing of sewage from East Contra Costa County, including Shore Acres, Pittsburg, Antioch, Oakley, Bethel Island, Brentwood, Byron, and Discovery Bay. The Agency is proposing to undertake a project consisting of the following elements: . Conveyance of sewage from Shore Acres, Pittsburg and Antioch to a sub- regional treatment facility located to the east of Pittsburg. The sub- regional facility will provide secondary level treatment with disinfection, dechlorination and discharge to the surface waters of the Sacramento River at New York Slough; Local secondary treatment and land disposal by evaporation/percolation at Brentwood, Byron, Discovery Bay and Oakley (including Bethel Island); . Local secondary treatment, disinfection, dechlorination and discharge to the surface waters of the Sacramento River at Mountain View (via marsh enhancement) and at Port Costa. Capacity of the sub-regional facility has been designed for two stages: Stage I will handle an average dry weather floc, of 9.48 million gallons per day (MGD) suitable for population projected to the year 1986; .and second stage flow of 12.47 MGD suitable for population projected to the year 2000. 2.1.2 Staff Comments and Recommendation Staff recommends approval of this project subject to applicant's decision to participate in the Air Quality Maintenance Plan and to mitigate adverse land use impacts through local planning processes now underway. This project is designed for implementation in two phases. Initially, im- provements will be made to achieve water quality objectives and to upgrade the level of treatment. The first phase provides for limited capacity in- . creases in parts of the study area but total capacity will be less than the design capacities of existing facilities. The growth inducing impacts of the first phase (as described below) are significant but can be mitigated through existing land use and air quality control mechanisms. Under -Phase II where the planned capacity increases may have growth-inducing impacts, the mitigation needs would be more substantial . The costs of expanding other service systems (e.g. water, schools) to serve the level of growth that can be accommodated by wastewater treatment would be higher. the phasing program appears to be a mitigation measure itself as it will afford time for local agencies to assess the fiscal feasibility of further expan- sion and its implication in terms of escalating costs of providing other public service improvements and mitigating potentially adverse impacts, especially in East County where excessive growth would generate increased commuting, a deterioration of air quality, and congestion of Highway 4 where traffic flows already exceed capacity. For Phase I, the growth assumptions specified in the OEIR/S are basically consistent with the East Contra Costa Area Plan which is now in draft form. Phase II growth in East County would serve a population which is considered very high in the draft East County Plan. Phase II will not be financed with State or Federal funds, unless grant allocation procedures change. Implementation of Phase II will require passage of separate bond issues. Since there are indications that the local agencies may have difficulty financing the local share of Phase I, the ability of local agencies to finance Phase II is by no means certain. The proposed project calls for local treatment facilities in the East County communities of Brentwood, Byron, Oakley, Discovery Bay and Sand Hill. This design appears to be consistent with achieving a compact growth pattern in an area which has significant amounts of prime agricultural land. Gravity interceptor links between those communities are not part of the proposed project. This should minimize potential adverse impacts of "leap frog" development in rural areas, although the Draft EIR/S does anticipate that this impact will occur in Oakley, Brentwood and Sand Hill , in part due to the extension of services to areas now served by septic tanks (pages 6-51 ,52), These impacts may be mitigated through a number of possible land use controls. Although the DEIR/S does not specifically link the discussion of adverse impacts to specific mitigation measures, the draft East County Plan, pend- ing revisions to Brentwood's General Plan and the policies of the county' s Local Agency Formation Commission all can provide means to check the spread of low density residential development outside of existing communities. 00UUaU A more significant impact of the growth accomodated by this project is the need to expand other public service systems to serve new populations. As stated above, Highway 4, east of Antioch, is already congested. Although minor improvements are planned, MTC staff has indicated that major improve- ments to this facility are not programmed in the Regional Transportation Plan. Since new employment opportunities will likely be very limited in East County, substantial numbers of new residents will probably commute in great numbers to either Bay Area or Stockton area employment centers. A1- though new industrial growth in Pittsburg or Antioch could minimize commu- ting distances for East County residents, new industry would also increase demands for additional residential growth, hence -the need for mitigation. Lacking significant new employment opportunities (on a large scale) in the study area and without transit service, increased commuting and attendant air quality deterioration would be in conflict with regional policies which encourage decreased commuting and the location of new residential develop- ment close to employment centers. New residential development in Discovery Bay exemplifies this conflict with regional policies. Originally approved by Contra Costa County as a second home recreational contmunity, the development is now being marketed as a year-round residential community. As a second home development, its impact on commute patterns and congestion would likely be minimal . As a residen- tial community of eventually 15,000 people in an isolated area near the Contra Costa County-San Joaquin County Line, its development constitutes the creation of a new urban center in an area removed from nearby urban ser- vice cores. Elsewhere in East County, population growth associated with the first phase of this project will proceed at a modest level and can be mitigated in a number of ways suggested in the Draft EIR/S (pages 4-2,3,4). Accelerated growth in local population serving employment, tightly drawn sewer service bounderies, agricultural preservation zoning are all measures which would minimize adverse impacts on regional policies. Again, the East County Area plan, the Brentwood plan revisions and LAFCO actions would seem to provide appropriate planning opportunities to assess mitigation measures of this kind. In the urbanized portion of the study area (Pittsburg, Antioch, Shore Acres) the impacts of the project appear less severe than in East County. Most of the growth accomodated by the project will occur in urbanized areas. Accord- ing to the Draft EIR/S `.'. . .roughly half of the additional residential develop- ment will be single-family attached homes. . .approximately 1/4 will be in- filling of vacant land within the developed area; the remaining fourth will be redevelopment. . ." (pages 6-49,51 ). The interceptor link between these communities will stimulate low density residential growth which is antici- pated to consume 4800 acres of undeveloped land between existing developed areas aligned in a linear pattern along the North Shore. This development pattern may have an adverse impact viz-a-viz increasing transit use, main- taining or reducing VMT and maintaining air quality. Substantial invest- ments in new roads will be necessary as a consequence of serving new subur- ban development on the fringe of existing development areas. As explained in relation to the East County Area, all of these impacts are potentially adverse in terms of regional policy although mitigation appears to be feasible. i Summary This project is consistent with regional policies as long as air quality and land use mitigation occurs especially in the East County area. Un- fortunately the DEIR/S does not discuss specific mitigation strategies although a "shopping list" of potential measures is provided. At this phase of the project design it is simply unclear hoar mitigation will occur. In view of these considerations, staff recommends approval of this project subject to the participation of affected coniunities in the regional Air Quality Maintenance Program now being undertaken by ABAG in conjunction with its "208" Environmental Management Program. ABAG staff will con- tinue to monitor the progress made by East County communities to recon- cile land use policy conflicts and to mitigate adverse land use impacts. 00UUj1J.O MAR 8 M sa AN "TT f�� `-' • � •Gt• �.��.c�-�.,tC,t� tit •�f�V )1Y '�iR/{"1.�,�r �+�iM. .moi.i/'rC,./E' �%4�M.�%'.s..�,�/y,�GC/,,,y� i'�ryr`f/'-�'.;/(�j�� ..:G LLff ter►. � f/�i• L j� � a / .1 ' ,ry2.• .c- -c�.e�irt'.�. ,,c�f'. (, t,A� s • v tilt fly7 OUt+ In L i ..C..i' �y Not �S _ I ` ..' •,,' .•" . 1 �� ,-C fie. 1i .✓ 1 � � qty y . 1v ` ' t a y •'i��Nom: - E ..r F�XVp+y5' aQOU�� 't w�.�$'RS:i`l�. � �i�+d '�'��t�S_.?.,.;L 4 .'"„Y'.,.. ....x a.. .:o:a { ,4"'.. � ��..� ..ef'`✓'�� '`k�-�'r��'r,r.,`4 'rx Ln T+"gF'Y��Y. Response to letter from Mr. Gene Stonebarger (dated March 5, 1977) 1. Preparing a DEIR for an area plan is an unusually difficult task. An attempt %ras made to prepare a comprehensive DEIR of a readable length that addressed the planning issues facing the East County. 2. Table 2 was taken from the Land Use and Zoning Planning Background Report. According to page 37 of the proposed area plan, open space land use cate- gories include approximately 3,300 acres of water areas, and 12,400 acres of recreation areas. 3. The DEIR summarizes information on trails from adopted plans, and the source of the information is referenced on page 16 of the DEIR. The proposed area plan does not appear to address the question of trails. 4. Industrialization of a recreation area can have an adverse affect on the entire gamut of environmental factors. however, the DEIR does not make the assumption that the two uses are necessarily incompatible. 5. No response required. At the first public hearing on the East County Area General Plan Mr. Ronald Nunn made three carments on the draft Environmental Inpact Report. His remarks are summarized below: a. The draft EIR, on page 35, identifies two categories of Open Space: (1) Recreation and (2) Water areas. Mr. Nunn indicates that only public owned land should be designated open space. b. The draft EIR, on page 33, indicates that the salinity of delta waters must be reduced. Mr. Nunn stated that during the present drought, surface waters are still suitable for irrigation of agricultural crops. c. The draft EIR is incorrect in stating that row crops require six times more water than orchard crops. Point-by-point response a. On page 37 of the East County Area General Plan, waterways open for public use and not in private ownership are defined as permanent open space. Additionally, publicly owned parks, recreation areas, public utility rights-of-way, and managed watershed lands are defined as permanent open space. This designation on the land use map includes Frank's Tract, Little Frank's Tract State Park, Clifton Court Forebay, John Marsh Hone, and Byron Hot Springs. b. Some agricultural crops are more tolerant to high chloride content waters than others. The most adaptive crops include sugar beets, barley and corn. The sensitive crops include tomatoes, lettuce, many other vegetables and most orchard trees. There is a general recognition that protection water quality in the delta must be given a high priority. Long term exposure of the soils to high chloride-content waters will result in a build up of salt in these soils. c. The amount of water utilized for irrigation of orchard and row crops depends on the characteristics of the soil, nature of the irrigation system, type of crops, climate, and other factors. Row crops typically require at least twice as much water as orchard crops. The irrigation district has made an application for grants to increase its pumping capability. Provided these improvements are made, they will ensure an ample supply of irrigation water. At the second public hearing on the East County Area General Plan, Mr. Charles Pringle made several remarks on the DEIR. These remarks are summarize as follows: a. Pringle considers well water in East County superior to CCCWD canal water. b. Pringle stated the discussion of the circulation system in the DEIR was misleading and needed to be strenghthened. Also, that Highway 4 was to be widened to 100 feet. c. Pringle challenged a statement in the DEIR that the Delhi sand has a slight limitation for septic tank leach fields. Pringle stated that there were no limitations for septic tanks and that septic tank systems were not a threat to ground water quality. d. Pringle offered his general impression that the DEIR was incomplete, inaccurate, and that virtually every page contained serious errors. Response a. Ground water quality in the East County is not superior to CCCWD canal water. It should be recognized that CCCWD makes a detailed chemical analysis of canal water at its Oakley plant. If this quantitative chemical test data is canpared with chemical analysis of well water, the differences become obvious. Over the past several years CCCWD water has been consistently lower in chloride, TDS, boron and many other signi- ficant ignficant chemical constituents. b. The discussion of the circulation system is taken directly from the Circulation Facilities Planning Background Report. It accurately reflects the studies of the Public Works Department. Highway 4 presently possesses 32-40 feet of pavement frau Bridge Head Road in Antioch to Discovery Bay. In many areas the State has acquired a 100 foot wide right-of-way. Long range plans call for the eventual widening of Hiqhway 4 to 80 feet of pavement. However, no funds bud- geted for this purpose, and there is no likelyhood that Highway 4 will be widened to 80 feet in the forseeable future. . c. The statements on the septic tank limitations of the Delhi Sands and the possible threat leach fields pose to water quality are taken directly frau the 1974 Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, prepared Soil Con- ser-.ration Service. This is the most authoritative source of information on soils in Contra Costa County. d. No response required. At the second Public hearing on the East County Area General Plan, Mr. Gerry Leonard made three ccaments on the DEIR ' a. Fire Department equipment in the East County is not surplus equipment. b. Fire Departments in the East County are not substandard. c. He reaffirms the intent of the East County General Plan Committee to establish a ten acre minimum in the "Agriculture Core". Response a. The statements in the DEIR are taken from the Community Facilites Planning Background Report which was prepared for and presented to the citizens cc►anittee. b. The Fire Departments in the East County are volunteer fire departments, with some paid personnel. As the investments and population in the East County communities continue to grow, there will be a proportionate increase in the need for services, more and better equipment, training facilities, and the like. c. The DEIR reccamends that strong consideration be given to increasing the minimum parcel size in the "Agricultural Core 0000,10 r Supplementary Environmental Impact Report Responses (April 27, 1977) Due to time constraints, the EIR responses distributed prior to the East County hearing of April 5th were appreviated and some items were not fully addressed. The following supplementary responses are intended to amplify and clarify staff response to the written and oral testimony received on the draft EIR for the East County Area General Plan. The supplementary responses, along with the responses prepared for the hearing of April 5th, are intended to be final and complete. Cover Sheet for EIR Respones Cover sheet for the responses distributed prior to the April 5th meeting includes the response to testimony that was received at public hearing held on March 15th. The cover sheet should be amended as follows: G. Testimony of Mr. Ronald Nunn (March 15, 1977) H. Testimony of Mr. Charles Pringle (March 15, 1977) I. Testimony of Mr. Gerry Leonard (March 15, 1977) Response to Public Works Memorandum of.February 3, 1977 The Public Works memo requested that the EIR discuss mitigating measures for flood control and stream hydrology. In response, the East County Area General Plan recognizes that the Delta lowlands and islands are subject to inundation as a result of levee failure and/or flood flows on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Rivers. The land use element of the general plan designates the delta lowlands as recreation or agriculture-recreation. In the agriculture recreation area the proposed minimum parcel size is 20 acres. The proposed plan does recog- nize the existence of the Discovery Bay Planned Community, and the Bethel Island Recreation Community. In essence the proposed area plan reaffirms the long range plans for recrea- tion-oriented development on Bethel Island, but the proposed plan does not expand that committment to development. It should be pointed out that land development projects along creeks, closed depressions and areas protected by levees are subject to technical review by the Land Development Division of the Public Works Department. During this review careful consideration is given to flood hazards and related problems (eg. erosion, drainage, siltation) . As a result of this review, conditions are imposed on applicants to ensure that reasonable but effective precautions are incorporated into the improvement plans to mitigate the flood hazards. UGc��u 0 Response to Letter From CCRCD 1. Mineral Resources. The U.S. Geological Survey has prepared a map titled "Map Showing Mineral Resources of the San Francisco Bay Region California - Present Availability and Planning for the Future" (Misc. Investigations Series Map I-909) . The portion of this map which pertains- to the East County area is reproduced on the attached figure. The legend is as follows: Resource Symbol Peat (in delta lowlands) Horizontal line pattern Natural gas fields Cross-hatched pattern Glass sand Dot pattern (Domengine Sandstone) In addition to the mineral commodities specifically identified by the U.S.G.S. , there is demand for the Delhi Sand which occurs in the Oakley Sandhill area. This sand is used for fill in pipeline construction has a variety of uses in construction projects. It should be recognized that the conservation element of the County General Plan has specific policy statements which are intended to f - encourage the protection of mineral resources. The reader is directed ( to the policies on page 47-48 of the Open Space Conservation Plan (1973) . 2. Channel Improvements. `In response to the comments of CCRCD, Map 1 has been revised (see attached map) . Response to ABAG Letter Unintentionally, the responses of April 5th failed to respond to the comments on "Preservation of lands with resource and/or recreational value". The ABAG comments indicated that the DEIR could be supplemented to suggest programs for actively preserving unique recreational areas. At present the primary means of ensuring that natural areas are given special consideration during project review is through the environmental review which is performed on essentially all applications processed by the Planning Depart- ment, with the exception of building permits. The Planning Department has developed an administrative map series (scale 1 inch=2000 feet) , which covers the entire gamut of environmental factors, and including the natural areas discussed in the Delta Action Plan, prepared by DAPC (see attached inventor,) . In the long run, public aquisition of natural areas,-. open space easements or Other reasonable but effective means must be found to protect these areas. #� • 3- Response to Stonebarger Letter The previous response should be amended to acknowledge the discussion of trails on page 28 of the public hearing draft of the East County Area General Plan. OOOOA O .1 "i � tff�......:' � jr��'• 1, - .. 'f�'y t��5� `t�..• t � '. fr r rr-1 \` �: -Xi 4{ `r "!rt \ ... •� �7"�a_� J� 1 �'�•tti1��f,.Z' � `"Y,r, r1 ' ,1 .. �,{p• Y •�, ` [F. � t ^yS-1�''`� t 3„ St, �' 1-._-• ` 1v '�Ytvr t '�'��{Yii ., '`t plc.t `� ! �}�� ",' �,r-r•'.tr�: ..t '�� T! -)}- ��`sti�i - �'`"'+- { ," i - \r.4 < 1 t� ti .r f f J t•%r �t( l.. � (!� . •( t� ,.+y -) <. }, ! tA(ttlft utn I '� v S�'r..' `,'r'�'"rf LX lL/ i � ` _ ��Y•� t-'�X. :� �rt: t t 1` l �,! -"', r ..rt'J�f l ,rt5� jj.r' y(/ �^..,,, ��j`'�'�--"•(�''`1 'yf,�t tCV c/ (��+-9 1[ */ '} `i` �� ,,\t .it t;.l •c'tr''f;` '}}'�� `. � •�.� t� / \� �. ! ,• \\ 2 S \ It J 2 `i`r l• :GJEf/i f r' � y "S7.J{i 'l t f,,� Al r- ` � -f'�\ -��ti�t- ,aS�c (\`; � `..._ tc'�'�I/.-.l-y�-•�'�- ,.,`h._`�o 1.} �( ,} \1 �ti,\j� �'" �> t � '' �;,�`_ do c-�,�.�.�i e...,..,-•''1��*"'��`a', ' �. (t• .l izyrl �) '� � - • _ � _p ,.";"_w ..."�_` `aft, l �� --'._- t .. ; ^� •--•.. it ' F' 1 1` •�.•j•.�(t•r (w,r� 1_ ��2--> ,';y �`�` .�� /j,r� t ,CA 1A ` rr zr i.\G v. A _ �,..� J�• t - ti ��1 y err;,'✓��-`'.,,•.,x,5"^3---+�r�...�� :� ��..•I'/ - � �t �', ";,t t '•ti '!M i\ •. Vis j �y�.�� t' �. •i C:7 I�� r l L� �•+ C��toZy"�;;A'..��}" �'• Ii ,j�,i��t e. ,. �.. { v 4.�, �pit �++�-�o ,�,•--^�.,,� '�'{1#' �•'�, � .r , �r`' t. )�`.^�`�Cl S`�?.`�'� - •c" s� � � � >.�`�� _ �• - •j ," `��-`�i�'_.3 r I \ ''��,1\�-,rc`� c,,.,s�""",,,4 i�\�t •' I G.� �4' I��"4.S r.` `� f S— "7t MY r � t;+•� ��r`�t.. 1.� o`�7 f-�J-'}�f� .. � i ��_� �� _� S C-- st \ 1C Ls n `" Vis!}tr,.�("'�' � ��, � 1,-i.ti ..['1 .�� ( ,� •r" " ��•-••••••' c,(t '4 -Z:S' i(-"''i"1�, �G�L't '�v \ �`• Jnr• ti z t ' t -1 `�� '4t. �.�r'" et' 1��t1�1 i_ ,•_....=s: _ `i'" p�'. - ..-- •4 y'�' tttZ r. 1`�' - �n�� 1�.., �a t�b,ted;_o. '�y, �ti, •C�.�;^.,", ��r.. �Si�Sa oTWIV ttl`n 1 -. 1 ( i. .. ` _' ,E;t fttt rt"� _ ,r--�-) •k' ;t` •.ti 't,t� rn Jay � �j .�.,�.,,;,� ..,' 1 i lY .�t t ,•..,I .� c'.r,t,t••_L 11 ICy`'i•y�z 1i �^--,,,` •��• ''\` ..'- o' (�. ) t v � ,1��"UC, i i `.�3 •Z z. .r.Y;. * �ss • .r. � J I� r .• ,r. -•��Op't t :!. i rs C��} t�`•� �i. ..r•� �. .:-• ` .4A\" t I M � `'t 't' � ,l,. `y' ��~ {`: c7sttLtit 1 , Y1rC �r ✓c :aS� i .�ttil * yiI 1}r' 't` �i�,��^�{u��^'Q� �� r�-.L� 1 „�� ,'j �.. ��, ti L 1 � �•*,_ �.:�,..5�..�I r{'•-•� Yy. ` 1't,4t � �, ~k` •( ,, rYel � }!!` �~� .r ` ' •.\ \ ' t -�,"`,•. 1 !l,}y ' fi 't ''• 1!*•� �~ j O S' i .`�.'�. 17 S \ ,1 r� a ( f.� l •t •i„� •.�. �... t '�'�y '' \��111\�� 1t�� ``1��fn,a, ,.{`�� l ?yt�,Y.�•. � t'a.Z.t��}�', �,i ' NORTH 000' '�_ t• �f .�. Kmgniseo ' 1 ]l � { l ..R�_, fi •. 114 ��9tn� al"o^ ti a _ fi Vr Ij ft- Contour Interval 20 TOPOGRAPHY 0000,' O NORTH 16,000' i d r r 00 dib-lk f`rr4rM� ,...! Major Waterwayti' - ; 1'�_':• �: :,e II �.:.,:�.s.t,.s ` nr' -.-`c eJ,on rrn�cs of i . Proposed Channel Improvements .✓_ Improved Channel �r -=� �'� ,,t U��• t ;+ Dam MARSH- - KELLOGG WATERSHED PLAN MAP l c \ i'Nide D�rnis West Sacraments! :�� % Putah II i 1 `•� �t / Creek _: 1 J T Winchester , J,ta �=. Lake f/ `,� tone nd HeacJt Lakes Basins j + ! Sloughs, Ik Slougt ' « , , uRlrte3 R Badger Slough Marsh ' Sl Pres peck oc '• 'Rool ry Mokelurr�ne Cosumies p L'g_ �'� t - -= A , Cornple;(includng �• _. LosN Sbugh ; Meadows.Cosumnes Lindsay, ' ! o verflorr area.and LSlaugyt�. Brovelli Woods) 1 ? - Lindsey SlPugh Marsh14 ?I.... '' _ ��Ji � ',:.,� j Prospect Slough Marsh ` - « "� J'`/ ?Suisun French Islas 1G.,,. Marsh '► �F_ Ho 1`/ ', Mokelumne 0.1^.er Slough Mars �-C /�• o i _ Stough• ` 1` River ' l % Cf f f House Beach;: , l __ :' Crane Roosting �, Lodi La)® Area Siou • S%r:en Mile \ I � Sherman S`��/• '� , r i Islas '�'�•' .g j `" ` 'lhlte Slough Marsh :Ir PiLindevdleTp h1ars `,z �:� \80 k Growl ,. Little Franks Traci a /rs:, "ti;.... ..�efa :`;�.��f. •,�^ -,tt Tinsle Island Marsh'.t� � - .. . _ --;_�-- '"- � r.. r�; T iV P-. •'Ca`� �•`' .. t• "1�` t bVdtef Channel t BrovnsIsland y _ _ �1 '+� �. .. „i�i.... �� ;�. I Upland Antioch Pittsburg Mars ��-) .r' _�� _., Z �� kF� _ lands t Antioch Sand Dunes.-. Big Break duirnb, Islas MT.Diablo Rhode _.±....��., ..,. �French Island _ ,......�� •. _ Camp Significant d�lta Natural J _( �`1 a, Trapper Slcugh -' Sbugh Resource Areas �.�) . .�(R. -� Midd!e River July 1976 / �-Eucalyptus Island Old River A generalized map showing' T i ... r i ChannN Is' locations of key resource and Adjacent areas identified for pre= , �; " (; �� iif, %• i rad slogs servation . Smaller areas - - ` K T• �" .�� i �— Ctrcle Lake not shown (e .g. , all unleveed channel islands are classified -- Pouts County l ��ti,. Park Riparian as "significant . Forest �• t i. Byron �� Caswell Vernal a _ 1`1,=rraIPa6 Pools Fcrest1n SACRAMENTO REGICN-I AREA IeLAANING COb:MISSION I 9 E INVENTORY OF SOIFICANT DEL_011 RECREATIONPRESOURCE AREAS l?� III. SIGNIFICANT RECREATIONAL �. RESOURCE AREAS A. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA � J'k r, p Name of Area , Location Type of Area Comment IIIAf Antioch San Danes, San Last Delta sand dunes. Some access "- Joaquin River ispossible if controlled. Habitat of California legless lizard must be NOT 1M 1 LATJNJNCr W- P,) protected. IIIA2 Antioch San Lanes and Quarry Delta sand dunes on river with well Canyon, San Joaquin River vegetated "canyon" (restored quarry) Al ` (1 mile frcm Al) excellent for use. Scenic, but subject to industrial emissions. Fabitat of California' legless lizard tSpT iN '�ANN�►�iC�- �(Z�l� must be protected. IIIA3 Big Freak, cast County, near Flooded tract. merging marsh. Some j• � Bethel Island upland Cor recreational land use. Industrial zoning threatens. IIIA4 Quimby Island Uplands habitat. Some marsh. �c Potential park, but no access now. •fool IIIA5 Rhode Island Marsh interior of flooded island. Controlled nature study possibility. from cabin on stilts, but access is now hazardous. rIIA6 Byron Hot Springs Old spa, in disrepair. Springs are active. Private property is for sale. 1� IIA7 Bethel Island The southwest entrance to the Delta. Marinas,. restaurants and "staging area" ser=rices. IIA8 Eastern Contra Costa- Hills A sub-region of scenic rolling hills. Visually attractive, open space for tcuring. Good cattle grazing land. _ ��urc� : •DA'�C -Rcpo�� -F.��lecl �i Uel1o..Acl.�ont lana,. This listing is not a catalog of "Places to Go" and does not imply or suggest that public access is possible or even desirable without public investments, ownership, or at least thorough policing and management. Most of the named areas are privately owned, although a few are also subject to the public trust and its restraints. The areas are identified for their potential or present value as recreation sites, as an aid to planning and management programs. In some cases, enhancement or investments can increase the resource area's value. In others, no alterations shculd occur. 000040 I NVENTORYS I GN I FI CACI-1 DELTA PIATUR*RESOURCE .AREAS I• SIGNIFICANT NATURAL RESOURCE AREAS A. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA Map Name of Area Location T1' � , Type of Area Comment .1; V IAl- Antioch Sand Dunes, Last Delta sand dunes. r`.�. ► San Joaquin River. Habitat California legless lizaf�d. UOT LU PLWN1tl ' AQ1E IA2 Antioch Sand Dunes and Quarry Last Delta sand dunes. Habitat of ,.•tRi Canyon, San Joaquin River California legless lizard. Behind `�4T - (one mile east of Al). dunes is a scenic re-vegetated quarryil< with high value as park (except for. �� ; occasional industrial emissions in `> ► . . area). • C.NoT to ��atvN�uv AREa� � ��,�<< IA3 Antioch-Pittsburg marsh. Large marsh. Open space between t„ � t�srJT �t� �l.A►�N1►.i�r AR�-A� industry. ,, Y,� ► •; IAS! Big Break. East county near Emerging marsh. Tract flooded in .f1ti t r Bethel Island. 1930's. IA5 Browns Island, off Pittsburg. Uplands habitat. Blue heron rookery. ,,. ►' �"..� ►,YJT lAJ l'I.QUt\1t►�1(T• 1lQr+�� •�+, +;�, r• IA6 Eucalyptus Island, north of Uplands habitat. Flooded island. Clifton Court Forebay._, sr N IA7 Little Frank's Tract, crest Uplands habitat. Portion of the state of Frank's Tract. owned flooded island. jhi IN IA8 Quimby Island, southeast of Uplands habitat. Some marsh. Large. . .E; Frank's Tract. white tail kite population. " 1 IA9 Rhode Island, south of Marsh. Flooded island. Excellent s, Quimby Island. wildlife habitat. IA10 Mt. Diablo, in eastern -To-lean aa##Ga. Outside DAPC area U Contra Costa County. but is a Delta visual landmark. Partially a state park. Uo-r ttJ Pl,�t��lt►sl7- !�►Z�a 1 ... i5 • IA11 Unnamed tidal channel islands All channel islands are designated in False River (north of "significant" but these are especially Frank's Tract). important. Most levees are without vegetation in this tiraterwiay. See also item IF2. 1 IA12 Coulter Pines, Black `:die northern most limit of this pine Diamond ]-lay (Coal I•'Iines Area) which is characterized by large cones. fir: k�ms�,� • `3Wlce ' DAP G -Rc1GA, k� `(+v� _:• , ' �6 . .. ��•De1�o. 4c�is�n.,Plc4�n ��. •;,,• .. YSxI:;;. 1S t 'it { x AIL � i ��Y' -.�� • r._, �y c=sY, y �a.` T' i4l��{ � ,�, y^��r-b��"�"'5,= =NORTH Mil- c _ '^•r...� -r,, �?" � `°Sheth - t+r '�- i L. k t� ," "o• � � _ �' - ��,� �ityr�� .tom t y,rr ... �" .K.'� ''r - a� `. r3•Ax.l - _ �Hr .pl�r 73'-� '��1 ,t �"r.,:k '^'� _ la V ' .-. � �'--'�_��t - /.w A. 4'��idj;: K r i..-`•.sem`? � �rFLtO '>• `r. :� - t� � rh ',�} ,..x,41 1 wig .lOCrt+ v. s. i n i'..'u• � � f _�4 a' �, r r� ^t ��-.h y S-• � til.'" ,«�,,...-f s�:. VICINITY MAP EAST CO - }fes _ _ AREA GENERAL `PIAN 48' CP 767 aF ��LL . . � ._. ..,. - _ - � - ... � rx-'-:'.��s12�,•"U'�t[s�''",h. _�-" s.^�Y'+.Ci.�--`'yti h!? �7 �'.r:��{}T� . NORTH 16,000 1 ) So 4 _ � '. IUrgHta�n BRENTWOOD ,% �p \ Byt011 r � 'SX` `'_�`� _ ��/ s • •��( \� •ice Contour Interval - 200 ft. TOPOGRAPHY 0000,10 iiiiiijllllllllllllll1111111 11,11111111111111,100000000000000 "NORM 0©, � ' • � .� ,:,;w, n 10 '' t�� . •.t.�,•`\- '.'�'�'�'�''is 2 _- CO coo .00 � 4 �`'•'_�. `-" •�. •` `� END yid •'= ,� }. ..r;;;:';::•, \.EG • r��,•+.,,hy�t+.�"•=i.:;�,�,� � ft„-n_�„w £,,, lodusUN �,... -%,;,w ••�•�•�� •• -�. •.•s �ti^^^^'yy c s.,, a � 'fi•-itt'" A�j�yi\tut•"Rep ^t,:�w'C: f•••i• •� i•^��•' ,�:'��'^...�'.�•}""' .r} A9ngt\tum• ,{3.r„f,+.w.r.' +:. � • •A• n•-�-'T,ti•`�"`w`t-.-,.r•�t1. tw-j � � ..� t,j;.I a ;y 4 i 1d•• ,••!':��r O .Vit.'l •• •� r ,n'S-"'6 � �. y -,-, .! a f" t;`'-«.r'•� X3.0: • .-. ..�•it• `I;a �.-,�, i•rt'ftC'at`t Cry,' ••-••"moi s ° a .V.<t'w r01��• L.' •i':,�E^J ,-,tr':__!rr•-:.';!% eta. �u[4y �t�+o r;F{a �•+, 0;! • •• ' <;rtct�t".('rrfiv::C fi1.8�' a �a f t1 � • • '� .f rlt-rt: h�pS> �'i !Q� t tt ��l .{c e:l ^ �• • • {2'tr.r ?fr.o.J. 'fi: 6if1Y .f•' Ittt(" •• ••• w.�i�f�rtZ.-ww'• u�ya•tS rt�L.rft�•c7; �4t �, }•• ••• •• • wrt.«r�A{:'t•r,;.�'F •J1 �+•4J rte :w•..tf L7 • ,:� l' f.��:�`r 1'F 4, a�3♦ ,3v7 wt+•�r.�Ct►`La y• i .ref.�,y� .a'3•• t O;tlau-t3.�+r�j�?•��, it •e i'{ "re JC f{•'.w jjw'r i t t-r!- r.• .e. ♦ • tt '•i..t• .,Y, %lei-i'i!•r N". .f'tt (,'"p%s.i��•t,;' <' t:ifiCrt'Jt;jsr(;`.{.'.;ft":�`' �,{•rfwr!'!C, . �{•tr"•r t K�" t YT�f 5t'. -%� ♦ r..r f. �..:-moi%•_,*.. .tri r� 000 0,10 L pl,•p,N pR0 NORTH 1" = 16,000 :1 :i;• , �,�; , ;`� '1!1•7�n- y��h.��•'t^ 'til'. ,. Ilk 30 • :� :, Yom,•�: a.:, '771:� ^1 '��. _ '»-`��'l• .;1 • _ �� LEGEND y1V. Residential Areas ,.�,' - � �• .�• ~� �,�'•'l. H l w - -„fes y =� A- �: '„•:' »l 7 -� tix` r .-t <;�*�c: Medium Density High Density yam, ?A�,• �..; , , . .., , ;a, Employment Areas r'1�..}.r � �y�•�rl .�\\• K -�. a.r "1• `t%rhr :.,�• ?+ �:, ,�, fiR '? C.-t� ,, Commerce .yi7.4• +r x;, ;,ti ,;.,r..,.._�,'• _ . .,.. .�, Industry ' , ' �i��,r.;ri�,, " =;,; ♦� :5 ,: '�:+:;'i -w i Controlled Manufacturing Open Spits 7 ru � ,�?st� � •`.?: rr: �`; '; '+ �: Z .;: Recreation Areas � .'� � � - - - `.�`'^�T, a:'"-:. �=;•- Intensity Agriculture • •9 ^a , '. y ~` ,— ~ ��"' 1��.'.� '� '"`S �•• Extensitive Agriculture s�A ;�. •]•.a�� ! ri- .=ins ,. 0. ' \i/� ��1''�'.1,7 Mir: ti r,-•''•��j�~1•-� ?�:,y ;•:, �� I� =��—� -ter,!!h_c-%y'i�'1,� 'r . •q.1.��''y: f A �J �aq JJ.'s�• s•� .7 v ,haw • ...•�.s J 1963 GENERAL PLAN UUUU,'U • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introductory Discussion 1 A. Project Description 1 B. Environmental Inventory of the Region 3 1. Physical Description 3 2. Existing and Surrounding Use 4 3. Utilities and Community Facilities 6 4. Circulation 12 5. Plans, Ordinances and Policies 17 6. Soils and Geology 20 7. Hydrology and Water Quality 24 8. Vegetation and Wildlife 34 9. Wildfire 38 10. Open Space 38 11. Socioeconomic Considerations 39 12. Air Quality 42 13. Noise 43 14. Historical and Archaeological Aspects 45 15. Energy Conservation 46 II. Environmental Impact Analysis 47 A. Environmental Impact of Proposed Action 47 1. Viability of Agriculture 47 2. Uneconomical Parcel Size and Cost of Operations 48 3. Absence of Guidelines in Agriculture Residential 48 4. Land Use and Population 5. Schools 50 6. Sewage Disposal and Water Facilities 50 7. Circulation and Traffic 51 8. Geology 51 9. Seismicity 52 10. Stream Hydrology 52 11. Delta Flood Hazard 53 12. Overuse of Delta Waterways 53 13. Water Quality 54 14. Vegetation and Wildlife 54 15. Economids 55 16. Housing 55 17. Air Quality 56 18. Noise 56 19. Archaeology 57 20. Energy Impacts 57 UO{j'OA() Page B. Any Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided If This Proposal Is Implemented 58 C. Mitigating Measures Proposed to Minimize the Impact 59 1. Planned Community 59 2. Recreation Community 59 3. Agriculture Core 60 4. Agriculture Residential 60 5. Agriculture Recreation 61 6. Recreation 61 7. Industry 62 D. Alternatives to Proposed Action 62 1. No Project 62 2. Conformance with Countywide General Plan Categories 62 3. Increase Minimum Parcel Size in Agriculture Land Use Categories 63 4. Phase Development in the Oakley Brentwood Planned Communities 63 5. Place Foothill in Large Parcel Major Open Space Classification 63 6. Revise Proposed General Plan Land Use Map 64 7. Balance Residential Use with Anticipated Employment Opportunities 64 8. Energy Alternatives 64 E. The Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity 65 F. Any Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would Be Involved if the Proposal Should Be Approved 65 G. Growth-inducing Impacts of the Proposed Action 65 H. Organization and Persons Consulted; Documents Utilized 65 I. Qualifications of EIR Preparation Agency. 66 Appendix I 68 Appendix II 70 Appendix III 71 r 000040 LIST OF TABLES Page Table I Comparison of 1970 Land Use in the East County versus 1970 Land Use in the County 5 Table 2 1973 Land Use, East County Planning Area 5 Table 3 Existing School Facilities, East County Planning Area 9 Table 4 Existing Fire Protection Facilities, East County Planning Area 11 Table 5 Land Use Categories, East County Planning Area 18 Table 6 Analyses of Selected Domestic Well Supplies, Bethel Island 32 Table 7 Vegetation Types, East County Area 37 Table 8 Rare, Endangered and/or Unique Wildlife and Plants 38 Table 9 Bay Area Air Pollution Control District Episode Stage Criteria 44 Table 10 Comparison of Acreages of General Plans 49 LIST OF MAPS Page Map 1 Marsh-Kellogg Watershed Plan 13 Map 2 Traffic Flow Map 15 Map 3 Soils 22 Map 4 Geology 25 Map 5 Seismic Susceptibility 26 Map 6 Watersheds 27 Map 7 Flood Prone and Flood Hazard 29 Map 8 Vegetation 36 00oo'c U I. Introductory Discussion A. Project Description The proposed project is the adoption of the East County Area General Plan, an amendment to the Contra Costa County General Plan. The Planning Area for this plan is defined as being that portion of the county which is east of Bridgehead Road, Deer Valley. Road and Vasco Road, as shown on the Location Map at the beginning of this report. The Planning Area is bounded to the north by Sacramento County, on the east by San Joaquin and on the south by Alameda County. Thus, the Planning Area includes the south shore of the San Joaquin river, east of the Antioch Bridge. It also includes the Delta islands, Delta waterways and Delta lowlands of Contra Costa County, a unique recreational and wildlife area. The East County Planning Area extends westerly to include the lower, east-facing foothills of the Diablo Range and the adjoining portions of the San Joaquin Valley. the Planning Area is bounded by Alameda county. The entire Planning Area has a strong agricultural orientation. Evolution of the General Plan In 1963 the County General Plan was adopted for the county including the Planning Area. Over that period of time there were some minor amendments tQ the plan and several countywide General Plan elements were adopted. These factors, along with the growing population in the East County, possible shifts of emphasis in the priorities and aspirations of residents and property owners in the East County, and events taking place outside the Planning Area combined to generate a need for a comprehen- sive review and updating of the General Plan. This General Plan study was triggered ordered by the Board of Supervisors in 1973 as a result of hearings on the Open Space and Conservaton element. At that time the East County was placed in an "East County Reserve Area" land use category, thereby suspending the 1963 General Plan. The text of the Conservation and Open Space Plan (p. 26) established the following criteria for judging the appropriateness of. land development projects within the East County Reserve Area: "In view of these characteristics and the consideration that the long-adopted General Plan is in effect suspended by the Reserve Area designation pending completion of the area plan revision, it is necessary that no developments be approved in the Eastern County Study Area that would substantially increase its population, add to non-farm development in areas being used for agriculture or with' productive agricultural soils, substantially add to population or population densities in areas not served by both sanitary sewer and water facilities, change significantly the character of any part of the area, markedly expand any non-agricultural use area, generate significant volumes of traffic or origin-destination points, I and desires; to ensure that land uses are mutually compatible, functional, and aesthetically pleasing; and to provide balanced levels of commercial and office development, community facilities and coordinated circulation, which will maintain and complement the rural nature of the area. 3. Recreation Community: to provide and maintain a water-oriented recreation community supported by necessary residential and com- mercial development. .4. Industry: to provide and maintain employment centers appropriate to the rural nature of the area and to aid in developing the economic base of the Planning Area through new employment opportunities. S. Circulation: to achieve a safe, efficient, and coordinated transporta- tion system capable of serving and supporting the citizens and the economic base of the area, and to minimize conflict between agricultural and urban land uses. 6. Community Facilities: to obtain maximum benefit from existing public structures; to provide adequate public services, cultural and recreational facilities for residents of all ages. To achieve these goals, the East County General Plan includes these objectives: - To establish a pattern of land uses which will promote a high degree of health, safety, and efficiency for the well being of the East County community. - To provide for the maintenance and viability of the agricultural community. To relate new development directly to the provision of community facilities necessary to service that development. - To update and bring together the various land use elements_ of the General Plan for the area. - To integrate selected special purpose elements into one General Plan document. B. Environmental Inventory of the Region 1. Physical Description The East County Planning Area lies at the boundary of two major physiographic provinces, the Central Coast Ranges of California (Diablo Range) and the San Joaquin Valley, including the Delta lowlands. 000(ifd 3 Diablo Range Within this portion of the Planning Area elevations, local relief and steepness of slopes increase to the southwest. The highest point in the Planning Area is an unnamed hill east of Vasco Road with an elevation of 1300 feet. Natural slopes in this area reach a maximum of 3/4:1 (horizontal: vertical) and local relief may exceed 500 feet. The topography is dominated by long, locally steep-sided, northwest trending ridges with intervening narrow, alluvial valleys. Intermit- tent streams flow generally parallel to the ridges but in places the streams have breached ridges to form a trellis drainage pattern, typical of folded areas. The hillsides are furrowed with gulleys and pock-marked with landslide scars, indicative of the erosion hazard and slope stability problem that exist throughout much of the region. San Joaquin Delta This portion of the Planning Area consists of a relatively fiat alluvial plane which slopes gently to the east and northeast, toward the San Joaquin River. The entire province is underlain by surficial deposits. The Delta lowlands in the easternmost portion of the Planning Area (area below an elevation of 10 feet) are underlain by soft, water- saturated peat, muck, and mud. Alluvial fan and floodplain deposits underlie the topographically higher, western and central portions of the province. In the Oakley area, these alluvial fan deposits are overlain by geologically recent sand durie deposits. The dunes were formed during the last "ice age", when sea level was much lower than the present sea level. The topographic expression of the dunes has been modified by man and subsequent erosion. Climate The climate of the East County Planning Area is a modified Mediterranean type. The winters are mild but rainy and the summers are moderate to hot and subject to drought. The region's topography causes a considerable variation in rainfall and temperature in different portions of the_area, with rainfall ranging from 17 inches in the southwest hills to less than 12 inches in the eastern Delta. Approximately 90 percent of the precipitation falls in the months of October through April. The climate is conducive to productive agricultural operations. 2. Existing and Surrounding Use (Land Use and Zoning, 66 p.) The following discussion is summarized from the Planning Background Report titled Land Use and Zoning, Inventory and Analysis (66 p.) The relative distribution of land use in the East County Planning Area varies considerably from the distribution in the county as a whole. The county consisting of a mix of uses from urban to rural, whereas the East County contains a more typical rural mix (see Tables 1 and 2). 4 create development in areas where there are unresolved questions of safety, result in public facilities operating over their design capacities, or which may have a substantial adverse effect on the environment." Subsequent to adoption of the Conservation and Open Space Plan, the Board of Supervisors initiated a General Plan study for the East County. The Board appointed a Citizens Advisory Committee, consisting of residents of the Planning Area, to work with the Planning staff on a new General Plan for the East County. By design, the membership of the Citizens Advisory Committee covered a varied and broad spectrum of interests. The Area Plan was developed by the citizens committee, with the Planning Department serving as staff to the committee. As such the plan reflects the goals and priorities of the citizens of the Planning Area. The planning process consisted of two distinct phases. The initial phase consisted of familiarizing the committee with the factors which are routinely given consideration in the development of general plans. The Planning staff accomplished this objective through the preparation of a series of planning background reports, listed below. Planning Background Reports Population Characteristics, Inventory and Analysis (41 p.) Transportation Facilities, Inventory and Analyses (46 p.) Economic Characteristics, Inventory and Analyses (146 p.) Physical Resources, Inventory and Analyses (117 p.) Community Facilities, Inventory and Analyses (149 p.) Land Use and Zoning, Inventory and Analyses (66 p.) It should be recognized that to a considerable extent the technical information contained in this Environmental Impact Report is based on the Planning Background Reports. These reports are available for review in the offices of the County Plannng Department. Following completion of this preliminary phase, work on the Area Plan was begun. The first step in the formulation of an Area Pian is the identification of specific planning goals for the East County area. These goals are the skeleton of the plan; the framework upon which the various policies and recommendations rest. Goals and Objectives The East County Area General Plan was prepared to further several long- range and on-going goals for the Planning Area. These goals may be summarized as follows: 1. Agriculture: to encourage the preservation and enhancement of agriculture. 2. Planned Community: to develop a "sense" of community through the development of safe, healthful and attractive living environments and a range of housing styles, types, and cost ranges to suit varying needs 2 _TABLETMPARI50N OF 1970 EXISTING LA, SE WOUNTY/EAST COUNTY PLANNINGA Contra Costa County, California County East County Acres % of Total Acres %.of Total Residential 37,383 8.2 2,223 1.9 Commercial 13,083 2.9 490 0.4 Industrial 6,938 1.5 59I= - -- 0.5 Public/Semi-Public 15,475 3.4 716 0.6 Open Space 381,558 84.0 111,703 95.0 Other 1,829 1.6 Total 454,437 100.0 117,552 100.0 Source: Land Use and Zoning, Inventory and Analysis, East County_Planning Area. Contra Costa County Planning Department (June, 1974)., TABLE 2 EXISTING LAND USE EAST COUNTY PLANNING AREA ' Contra Costa County, California Acres, RESIDENTIAL Z;223 Single Family and Related 1,999 Multiple Family and Related ::;: 36-:' Mobile Home 61, Mobile Home Park "114 Group Quarters - :: 13 COMMERCIAL 490. Retail Business and Related 235 Commercial Recreation 255.: INDUSTRIAL =591 Light Industry 137 Heavy Industry 104- Mineral 04_Mineral Extraction 350 PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC 716-- Public/Semi-Public 16-Public/Semi-Public 213 Utilities - 503 OPEN SPACE 111,703 Agricultural 99,201 Intensive _. 56,549 Extensive 42,652 Vacant _. 8,860 Water 32312 Recreation 330 OTHER 1,829 Roads and Streets 1,618 Railroad 211 00004 U Source: Land Use and Zoning, Inventory_and Analysis, .East County Planning Contra Costa County Planning Department(June, 1973). 5 Comments and remarks on the data contained in these tables may be summarized as follows: Residential: Much of residential land use is concentrated in the more developed areas of East County including Bethel Island (155+ acres), Oakley (295+ acres), Sand Hill (267+ acres), Brentwood (147+ acres) and Byron (118+ acres). _ Commercial: The area committed to commercial uses are nearly , evenly split between two subcategories, retail business (235+ acres) and private recreation (255+ acres). Retail business is concentrated along the Highway 4 corridor, as well as in Bethel Island, Byron and Knightsen. Private recreational uses, consisting primarily of water recreation-oriented businesses, are found along the waterways of the Bethel Island area, adjacent sloughs, and the north coast of the Planning Area. Industrial: The area committed to industry can be divided into three categories as follows: light industry (137_ acres), heavy industry (100+ acres) and mineral extraction (350+ acres). The heavy industry category consists of one industry, the E. I. DuPont plant on Bridgehead Road. Public/Semi-Public: This land use category was broken down into two subcategories for clearer definition. Public/Semi-Public (213+ acres) and Utilities (507+ acres). The utilities category includes irrigation ditches, aqueducts and pumping stations. Open Space: Open space lands include a variety of uses including water areas, parks, commercial, agricultural lands and vacant land. Land use categories within open space were broken down as follows: intensive agriculture (56,549+ acres), extensive agriculture (42,652+ acres), vacant land (8,860+ acres), water areas (3,312+ acres) and recreation (330+ acres). Other: This category was used to indicate road and street right-of- way ( 618±acres) and railroad right-of-way (211+ acres). 3. Utilities and Community Facilities (Community Facilities, 149 p.) Perhaps the most critical issue in East County centers around the provision of suitable community facilities and utilities to serve the existing and future development. The following discussion is an overview of the problems, and a brief introduction to existing facilities and district boundaries. (See the appendices at the back of this report for a complete listing of special districts and service areas in the East County.) Sewer and Water Svstems Sewage Disposal. Because of the high water table in the Delta lowlands (water table is at a depth of approximately 5 feet), the soils 6 i • in eastern and northern portions of the Planning Area have severe limitations for septic tank leach fields. Because of their slow permeability, the heavy textured clayey soils in the Brentwood and Byron areas possess severe limitations for septic tank leach fields. The sandy soils in the Oakley, Sand Hill and Knightsen area have only a slight limitation for septic tank leach fields. However, there is a potential public health hazard in this area. Specifically, the rapid permeability of the sand can result in contamination of ground water supplies. It is apparent that while septic systems are compatible with a very low density agricultural land use, suburban densities and uses require sewer service. At the present time there are three county sanitary districts (CSD) in the East County Planning Area: CSD #15 (Bethel Island), Oakley SD (Oakley), and CSD #19 (Discovery Bay). Addition- ally, the City of Brentwood provides sanitary sewer service within the incorporated area. The district boundaries, wastewater treatment plants, and discharge locations are shown in the.map at the beginning of this report. It should be recognized that not all of the East County communities are located within a sanitary sewer district. As these communities develop indications are that a proliferation of septic systems may pose a hazard to health, possibly contaminating ground water supplies. Suburban growth in the East County should be planned on the basis that sanitary sewer service shall become a required public facility. Water Systems. With the exception of the area presently served by the Oakley County Water District (OCWD), the East County relies on ground water supplied to serve domestic needs. Contra Costa County Water District (CCCWD) wholesales raw water to OCWD. The water is taken from the Contra Costa Canal, is passed through an OCWD treatment plant and is then distributed to customers in its service area. The boundary of OCWD is shown in the map at the beginning of this report. Ground water quality in the East County is not good at present and indications are that it will worsen in the f uture. This subject is discussed later in this report, as a section entitled "Hydrology and Water Quality." Education Facilities: Five independent school districts serve the East County Planning Area; four elementary school districts and one senior high school district. The programs of each district are administered by the District Superintendent and each school within the district is directed by a building principal. Table 3 lists the eight schools within the Planning Area along with their characteristics, capacities and 1975 enrollments. Table 3 indicates that Brentwood Union Elemen- tary School District schools and Liberty Union High School are essentially operating at capacity. Conversely, Oakley Union and 000040 7 Byron Union schools are operating at approximately 80 percent of capacity. There are no plans to construct additional ,schools at the present time. During the next 4 or 5 years it is anticipated that growth in enrollments can be accommodated through the use of portables. Over a longer run, construction of new schools may be required. However, at this time it has not been determined how best to respond to the growing student population. Alternatives that exist include the following: construction of a junior high school (reducing enrollments at the existing elementary schools and Liberty High School), additions to existing schools (increasing the capacity of existing schools) or the construction of new elementary and/or senior high schools (at sites which have not yet been determined). To enable the East County school districts to plan for growth, the districts have made contact with the County Planning Department. They hope to complete arrangement for a detailed population study which would predict the rate of growth in the student population in the East County through 1990 by five year or lesser increments. The assessed valuation per pupil for the elementary districts in the Planning Area for 1971-72 was as follows: Brentwood Union $16,366; Byron Union $42,730; Knighsen $21,182; and Oakley Union $19,602. In California an assessed valuation of $10,000 per pupil is considered the minimum for adequate operation of an elementary school program. It should be stressed that some schools in the East County are near the end of their prime life. These schools will be in need of replacement or renovation during the next quarter of this century, possible during the planning period. Police Protection: The Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department provides the major portion of police protection in the unincorporated portion of the Planning Area. The Planning Area falls into two patrol beats. One beat includes Oakley and Bethel Island and the other beat includes all of the remaining area. According to the Sheriff's Office there is a patrol car in each beat at all times. The patrols originate from the Sheriff's substation in Oakley. All departmental support and administrative personnel are located in Martinez at the County _ Administration Building. In addition, the Sheriffs Department maintains a Marine Patrol comprising two officers and two 20 knot trailered patrol boats. The Marine Patrol is responsible for the regulation of speed among pleasure craft and rescue work. The California Highway Patrol also provides police services in•the Planning Area. The Highway Patrol is responsible for patrolling Highway 4 as well as all county roads throughout the Study Area. The Highway Patrol's primary responsibility is to expedite the smooth and safe flow of traffic. 8 TABLE 3 EXISTING SCHOOL FACILITIES EAST COUNTY PLANNING AREA Contra Costa County, California , Capacity do Utilization Building dt Site Year Built Number Site Reported Oct., 1975 Percent & of Size Reported Expansion Recreation District do Facility Grades Capacity Enrollment Utilization Last Addition Classrooms (Acres) Condition Potential Facilities Brentwood Union Brentwood K-4 600 595 99 1936/1967 21 7 Fair Poor Ballfield, Courts Playground Edna Hill 6-8 530 481 91 1948/1967 18 9.5 Good Good Ballfield, Courts, Playground Garin 4-5 I80 187 104 1970/ 6 9.5 Good Good Ballfield, Limited Playground Byron Union Byron K-8 340 276 81 1948/1968 13 10 Good Fair Ballfield, Courts Playground, Multi- Use Room Knightsen Knightsen K-8 300 287 96 1936/1963 10 9 Good Fair Ballfield, Courts, playground, Swimming Pool Oakley union Gehringer K-3 480 388 81 195811972 16 !5 Good Good Ballfield, Courts, Playground Oakley 4-8 700 553 79 1938/1965 26 15; Good Good Balifield, Courts, Playground, Gym Liberty Union Liberty 9-12 1,200 1,482, 124 1945/1971 50' 43 Good Good Gymnasium, Pool, Tennis Courts, Athletic Fields Source: School Districts; compiled by Contra Costa County Planning Department. , d ' Police service within the City of Brentwood is provided by the City's Police Force. The Sheriff's Department provides communication and dispatch service under contract to the city. Fire Protection Fire protection service in the Planning Area is provided primarily by four county fire districts; Bethel Island, Brentwood, Byron, and Oakley Fire Protection Districts. In addition, the Eastern County Fire Protection District includes a small, relatively unpopulated portion of the Planning Area along Vasco Road. The districts are presently able to provide a basic level of fire protection service, operated primarily on a volunteer basis. Most of the • heavy equipment is purchased used, as surplus, from the government or from other fire departments. Table 4 lists selected characteristics of facilities operated by each district. There are some special problems which warrant special mention. The Eastern Fire Protection District has recently complained that about 35 percent of the district is either in state or regional park land, or has been purchased by public agencies for permanent use as open space. As a result, this land is taken off the tax rolls, and the fire district can no longer collect property tax from it. Last year some 15 percent of-the district's total assessed property value was unavailable for taxation, and it is anticipated the trend will continue in the immediate future. To combat the loss of revenue, the district has sharply reduced maintenance of the district's 14 vehicles. Five of the vehicles are currently out of service, and during the winter, two more trucks will be pulled off the line. Some portions of the Planning Area are not included within any of the fire protection districts. These include Jersey Island, Bradford Island, Webb Tract, and Veale Tract. If assistance is requested in any of these areas, the responding district will bill the requesting party for the specific service given. These areas, because of poor access and lack of fire protection are not suited for intensive recreational uses. Flood Control The Contra Costa County Flood Control District was established in 1951 to plan and construct flood control and drainage facilities. In 1959* the Marsh Creek-Kellogg Creek Watershed Work Plan was issued. As a result of this plan, flood control dams have been constructed on Deer Creek, Dry Creek and Marsh Creek and plans call for construction of a similar structure on Kellogg Creek. A primary effort of the district in the East County has been the construction of channel improvements on _Marsh Creek, Dry Creek and Deer Creek, upstream from the Brentwood area. These improvements have been designed to provide an adequate level of public safety for an agriculturally-oriented area. These works are 10 TA13LE 4 , EXISTING FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES EAST COUNTY PLANNING AREA Contra Costa County, California Equipment Personnel Stations Station Brush Full Reported Site Expansion District Location Pumper Tanker Pick-Up Other Time Volunteer Condition (acres) Potential Bethel Island Fire Protection District 3045 Ranch Lane 3 ! t* 2 26 Good .26 Good Brentwood Fire Protection District 739- lst St. 4 ! 34 Good Fair Byron Fire: Protection District Ist St. 2 1 2 21 Good Good Knightsen Station 2nd and A St. 2 1 ! 21 Good .30 Good Oakley Fire Protection District 2nd and Ruby 3 ! 24 Good .62 Good Eastern Fire Protection District 1200 Marsh Creek Rd. 'Emergency pick-up with resuscitator Calif. Division of Forestry Fire Station E :' SOURCE: Prepared from the respective fire districts' Aim by the Contra' Costa County'Planning Department., Q C C:: neither intended or designed to meet the much greater needs of urban development. It should also be noted that the Flood Control Division of the Public Works Department has formulated plans for "study areas" within the East County which have not been adopted. For a discussion of flood hazards' in the East County Planning Area, the reader is directed to the section of this report titled "Hydrology and Water Quality." A number of reclamation districts have been established to reclaim land through the building and maintenance of levees and drainage ditches or other such improvements. Generally, these districts are not owners of property, but rather serve as a vehicle to maintain levees and drainage facilities. It should be stressed that levee maintenance is not required to meet any absolute standards of performance and that rehabilitation work is not done on a cost versus benefit basis. Rather, levee maintenance and repair is based on the financial capability of the district, and not uncommonly is done. in response to an emergency situation. Map 1 shows the location of reclamation districts as well as the existing and proposed drainage facilities of the Marsh Creek-Kellogg Creek Watershed Project. 4. Circulation (Transportation Facilities Report, 46 p.) Background The East County Area is not served by a large network of highway- transportation facilities. There is minimal public transit and a single state highway and numerous county roads provide the basis of the circulation system. The network of roads was developed to serve agricultural uses and to a great extent it has succeeded. However, as the Transportation Facilities Report stresses, the existing road system is inadequate to meet the needs of suburban development. Existing and Proposed Facilities State Roads: The Planning Area is bisected by State Highway 4, basically a 40-foot wide pavement with two lanes built on a 60-66 foot right-of-way. The existing road width and right-of-way are adequate for the present level of use. However, neither would be adequate should road widening become necessary. Although Highway 4 is not operating at capacity, the volume of truck traffic in urbanized areas is a problem as is noise. There are no plans for freeway development in East County for the next 20 years. On the long-range State Highway Plan, Highway 4 is shown as a freeway. This route, as well as proposed Routes $4 and 239 which would respectively connect the Livermore and Tracy areas, with Route 4 at Brentwood, have not been adopted. Significant construction in the foreseeable future is not anticipated. 12 NORTH_ 1 " = 16,000' � wr ` • �sJ��r•r7 .r• Major Waterway �= ��r• Proposed Channel Improvements _ Improved Channel • Dam MARSH. - KELLOGG WATERSHED PLAN 0(mo,1 U MAP 1 Information completed by the County Public Works Department on daily traffic counts on Route 4, as well as traffic counts on county roads and city streets in the Planning Area is summarized in Map 2. For a discussion of traffic counts and an analysis of this data the reader is directed to the Transportation Facilities Report (p. 8-15). County Roads: The East County Planning Area is served by a number of county roads laid out in a typical grid system, oriented north-south and east-west following land survey lines. Many of these are narrow and lack adequate shoulders. The majority of the county roads are located in the northern two-thirds of the Planning Area. Contra Costa County's Major Roads Plan, a portion of the county's adopted Circulation Element, reflects the desirable road network should extensive development take place. In addition, the road condition ordinance provides the means by which right-of-way dedication can be obtained as development occurs. The proposed East County General Plan includes a circulation element which is different from the Major Roads Plan because the MRP is projected for a longer term need than is reflected in the General Plan. It anticipates growth trends in a longer time frame. However, the Major Roads Plan is being revised and will be down-scoped from the present adoption. The proposed circulation plan indicates few new roads in the Planning Area, but does indicate new connections between some routes. The projected road development is primarily concerned with upgrading the present system through surface improvement and right- of-way widening. The proposed connections include the northern extension of Byron Highway to connect to Bethel Island Road, and the western extension of Laurel Road to connect to Hillcrest Avenue. It should also be noted that the County Public Works Department prepared a County Road Deficiency Study in 1968. This study estimated road needs in terms of the amount of money that would be needed to provide a system free of deficiencies. Using urban standards as the criteria, the study lists most of the roads in the Planning Area as "deficient." Most are deficient in terms of current structural standards, includng right-of-way widths, alignment, and drainage. The Public Works Department has a general program underway in the area to increase pavement widths to 28 feet from the prevailing 22-24 foot widths. It can be anticipated that any substantial development in any portion of the Planning area will likely require the upgrading of the county road network in that area as well as any other area affected by the development. Conversely, significant road improvement will not be necessary on roads serving only a predominantly agricultural commu- nity. 14 NORTH 1 " = 15,000' ; aha nor m w 0 � O 12'900 N M ostrr 1-140Q-.c.. 2951 to 16$3,��.Kriylirar _.4299 \ 8600 � 1258 La N 730 n `�• a M � H \\ •� O GO 1008 \. v m� •••••••••• 5800 3700 2900 Q=om \ 870 `� 704 Syron N s � o Numbers correspond to average daily trips Source: Transportation Facilities (1974, P. 11 ) Inventory and Analysis TRAFFIC FLOW MAP 00wo U MA P 2 Public Transportation Existing public transportation in the Planning Area is provided primarily through four daily inbound and outbound trips by BART express buses, providing service between the Concord BART station and the City of Brentwood. Additionally, there are two daily scheduled Greyhound Bus Lines trips through the area. Special van service to hospital patients and handicapped is also provided by private or nonprofit groups. A number of studies have analyzed transit needs, potential service by bus and van systems, and potential routing. The extension of BART rail service to the area is not deemed feasible during the planning period. The Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority has been established through a joint powers agreement between the county and the Cities of Antioch, Brentwood, and Pittsburg. This transit authority will provide limited local bus service within the City of Brentwood as well as to link the Brentwood area with the Antioch area. The Authority is also expected to streamline the present BART bus service in the East County by providing feeder bus service to BART express buses. This service is expected to begin in spring, 1977. The county has applied for a state funded Rural Demonstration Grant to fund a two year demonstration program which could result in more personalized transit service within the Planning Area than that planned by the East County Transit Authority. This service will link the Bethel Island, Knightsen, Brentwood, Byron, and Oakley areas with the Antioch area and will be particularly aimed at providing transit service to the elderly, handicapped and other transportation dependent groups. If successful, this service could eventually be absorbed by the East County Transit Authority. Rail Traffic Two railroad lines serve the East County area; the Santa Fe (ATSF) through Oakley and Knightsen, and the Southern Pacific (SP) through Brentwood and Byron. Although the AMTRAK San Joaquin passenger train passes throug the Planning Area, there are no passenger stops between Martinez and Stockton. Interim Trails Plans Currently no trails or paths exist in the Planning Area. Trail routes are shown in the County Interim Riding Path plan and Interim Bicycle Path plans. The plans propose to connect Oakley with Bethel Island, the Marsh Creek Reservoir, and the Contra Loma Reservoir. A proposed trail along Highway 4 will serve as connection to San Joaquin County, and a proposed trail along Marsh Creek Road will serve as connection to Clayton and Mt. Diablo. 16 5. Plans. Ordinances and Policies (Draft East County Area General Plan) The proposed East County Area General Plan is a comprehensive revision to the County General Plan, superseding the "reserve area" designation adopted in 1973. The proposed Area Plan is intended to guide development to 1990 (a twelve year period). The Area Plan recommends periodic reviews to monitor both progress in implemen- ting the plan and events in the Planning Area. The plan also calls for a complete General Plan study three years prior to its expiration. The following discussion is intended to provide an overview of the goals and major recommendations of the proposed East County Area General Plan. The reader is directed to the text of the plan itself for a more detailed discussion of the proposed plan Land Use Categories The proposed Area Plan recognizes four broad land use categories: (1) Agriculture, (2) Planned Communities and Recreation Communi- ties, (3) Recreation, and (4) Industry. Where appropriate, the following discussion will make certain comparisons between land use and land use categories in the suspended 1963 General Plan versus land use in the proposed Area Plan. Agriculture: The primary objective of the proposed Plan is the preservation of commercial agriculture in lands underlain by prime agricultural soils. To achieve this end, the Plan Nlap identified areas designated for agricultural uses, including the Agricultural Core area (a compact area of prime soils centered on Brentwood), Agricultural Recreation area (includes non-prime soils located below an elevation of 10 feet in the Delta lowlands), and Agriculture Residential area (a catch-all category consisting of hilly areas in the western and southwestern portions of the Planning Area, as well as areas on the valley floor which were not included in either the "Agricultural Core" or in the "Planned Communities"). The proposed Area Plan designates 100,095 acres or approximately 85 percent of the Planning Area for agricultural land use (see Table 5). Of this total, only 14,583 acres or approximately 12.4 percent of the Planning Area is designated "Agriculture Core." In designating an "Agricultural Core", the proposed plan focuses attention on the importance of preserving commercial agriculture within a manage- able area. The plan also recognized that in order to take development pressures off of the Agricultural Core, ample areas for growth in the "Planned Communities" were essential and they were provided. In essence the proposed plan encourages infilling in the existing urban growth centers, subject to applicable standards. It attempts to discourage the further breakdown of parcel size within the "Agricultural Core" by specifying a minimum parcel size of 10 acres. 17 0000i'l TABLE 5 • • - LAND USE CATEGORIES EAST COUNTY PLANNING AREA Land Use Categories Suspended 1963 Proposed East County General Plan Area General Plan Acres Remarks Agriculture Agriculture 100,095 A key recommendation of the proposed Intensive Agriculture Residential 54,125 plan is the identification of an agriculture Extensive Agriculture Recreation 31,387 core area where retention of commercial Agriculture Core 14,583 agriculture is encouraged, and where resi- dential uses are discouraged. A deficiency of the plan is a lack of clarity in estab- lishing the conditions under which the min- imum parcel size is appropriate for each land use category. Recreation Recreation 6,051 The proposed plan designates part of Big Break, Frank's Tract, Cliffton Court Fore- bay, Byron Hot Springs and Marsh Creek Reservoir for recreational land use. There appears to be a legitimate question on the compatibility of heavy industrial use and recreational use in the Big Break area. Residential Residential Areas Areas Low Density Planned Community 7,994 The proposed plan recognizes development Oakley/Sand Hill 4,843 patterns that have emerged since the adop- Discovery Bay 1,783 tion of the 1963 General Plan. The pro- Brentwood Bancorp.) 1,197 posed plan identifies the area encompassing Byron existing urban growth centers as Planned Byron 123 ghtsen 23 Communities which provide a mix of resi- dential, retail business and light industrial uses. Recreation Community 1,471 The proposed plan significantly expands the Bethel Island 1,471 public commitment to development on Bethel Island by designating the south-eastern portion of the island as a•Recreation Com- munity. In effect, this sanctions a recent- ly approved water-oriented residential de- velopment, and a previously approved mobile home park. Employment Areas Industry Industry 1,941 The proposed plan reaffirms heavy industrial Commerce use in the northwest corner of the Planning Area. The proposed plan provides for retail business and light industry (i.e. commerce) within Planned Communities. 18 The "Agriculture Residential' category amounts to 54,125 acres, or 46 percent of the Planning Area. The proposed Area Plan calls for a 5-acre minimum parcel size in this land use category. The 5-acre minimum parcel size is too small to be suited for use for commercial agricultural. According to the report prepared by the Land Conservation Committee and titled "Preservation of Prime Agricultu- ral Lands in Eastern Contra Costa County", under ideal conditions a 10 acre parcel is only marginally suitable for commercial agriculture. Consequently, where parcel size fragments to parcels smaller than 10 acres, the land use will in effect be converted from agriculture to very low density residential. The "Agriculture-Recreational' category amounts to 31,387 acres or 26.7 percent of the Planning Area. The proposed plan calls for a 20 acre minimum parcel size in this land use category. The "Agricul- ture-Recreational" area includes the Delta lowland and Delta islands, with the exception of Bethel Island, Franks Tract, Discovery Bay and Cliffton Court Forebay. Planned Communities and Recreation9d Community: The area designated for Planned Communities is significantly larger than the areas planned for residential and commercial uses in the 1963 General Plan. Criteria which were considered when defining the boundaries of the Planned Communities included: (1) availability of sewer and water facilities (at present and in the forseeable future), (2) ability of soils to support commercial agriculture, (3) existing development patterns. The text of the plan indicates that the population which can be accommodated in the planned communities greatly exceeds anticipated growth during the Planning Period (See p. 63 and p. 67 for discussion of existing and proposed land use). A stated intention of the Planned and Recreation Community concept is to develop a sense of community and cohesion within each growth center. Additionally, it provides a means of "staging" suburban development in East County by conditioning suburban densities on availability of sewer and water facilities. Specifically, the density of single family homes which is allowed in a Planned Community/Re- creation Community is related to service-availability criteria (water and sanitary sewer) as defined on p. 16 of the Area Plan. The East County Area Plan also includes detailed General Plans for each community in the planning area. (See p. 15-25 of the Area Plan). The proposed Area Plan designates approximately 7,994 acres or appro- ximately 7 percent of the Planning Area for Planned Communities and 1,471 acres or approximately 1 percent of the Planning Area for Recreation Community. Recreation: A stated intention of the Area Plan is the preservation of the natural recreational resources of the Planning Area. The plan map identified five recreational areas: Clifton Court Forebay, Franks Tract, Byron Hot Springs, John -Marsh Home and surrounding Marsh Creek Reservoir area, and the northeast half of Big Bre These areas are considered important because of environmen ��(��' 19 ecological, historic or other characteristics. The intent of this plan is that these recreational areas be utilized by public or private recreationally-oriented developments or be preserved for future recreational use. The Area Plan also points out that there is a need for local, neighborhood, and community recreational facilities within the Planning Area, and an implementation program is proposed. The Area Plan reflects existing state programs of park land development in the Frank's Tract Recreational Area. The proposed plan indicates there is approximately 100 acres of dry land available for development of recreational facilities on Clifton Court Forebay. The State's Delta Master Recreation Plan identifies Old River Islands between Rock Slough and Quimby Island, and Big Break as areas which should be preserved and managed in the public interest. There are no policy statements in the East County Area General Plan which focus attention on the preservation of these natural areas. The area plan designates approximately 6,051 acres or approximately 5 percent of the Planning Area for recreational land use. The 1963 General 'Plan identified two rather large recreational areas: (1) Levee remnant encompassing Franks Tract Lake, including the extensive freshwater marshland which is immediately west of Franks Track; and (2) A broad area encompassing the John Marsh home and Marsh Creek Reservoir. Industry: The proposed Area Plan reaffirms the heavy industrial designation of a parcel in the northwest corner of the Planning Area, and appears to expand the commitment to heavy industry by designating the southwest half of Big Break for heavy industry. Thus, the area proposed for heavy industrial use includes a fresh- water/brackish marshland on the south shore of Big Break. The proposed plan does not discuss possible conflicts between heavy industry and maintenance of Big Break's aquatic habitat for game, fish, birds, mammals and reptiles. Similarly, there may be conflicts between the proposed heavy _ industrial use of the land and the proposed recreational use of the land. The total area proposed for heavy industrial use amounts to 1,941 acres of land, or approximately 2 percent of the Planning Area. The proposed Area Plan also provides for light industrial uses within the Planned Communities. 6. Soils and Geology Soils (Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, 1974) The importance of good soil in continuing to produce vital foods cannot be underestimated in this period of increasing food shortages and world famine. Many soils are adaptable to a wide variety of crops which give agriculture the flexibility to change growing 20 patterns in response to changing market demands for agricultural products. Other soils, while they may be less versatile, still produce an annual harvest of adapted crops or livestock. Knowledge of soil characteristics is essential to farm and ranch management, to adequate land conservation practices and in some locations can be critical to wise crop selection. The Soil Conservation Service assigns to each soil series a soil class number from I to VIII based on the soil properties and characteristics which are limiting for cultivation. Classes I through IV are considered suitable for cultivated crops, with Class IV having severe limitations, such as a locally high water table or slope steepness. Classes V through VIII are rated for grazing suitability, but are considered not suitable for cultivation because of slope steepness. The details of these are available in the General Soil Survey of Contra Costa County of 1974. According to this system, all Class I and II soils are considered "prime" agricultural soils. Class III and IV soils are suited to cultivation but require special care because they are subject to erosion, have a sub-surface claypan or, in the case of several scattered small areas, are alkali and thus limited in the crops which are adapted. Though not considered prime, these soils are as good as or better than many soils in country which have been farmed successfully for generations. Within the Planning Area non-prime soils predominate in the Delta lowlands (high water table), in the sand dune area around Oakley and Sand Hill (poor nutrient qualities of soil; excessive permeability) and in the lower foothills of the Diablo Range (high erosion hazard, rapid runoff). Prime agricultural soils predominate on the Valley floor, particularly in the Brentwood area (see Map 3). The engineering characteristics of soils are an indication of their stability and capability to support the weight 'of structures such as roads and buildings, suitability for septic tank leach fields, slope stability properties, and the like. Recognizing the importance of knowledge of soil capabilities and limitations prior to land develop- ment, and incorporating this knowledge into plans and project design, are a major means of reducing property damage risks and minimizing public costs of constructing and maintaining roads, facility installa- tions, and public buildings. Failure to observe the limitations inherent in soils may-result in expensive or persistent problems in structures and improvements such as slope failure, extreme erosion and silting, heaving and cracking of pavements, dislocation of utility and sewage lines, and many minor local problems as well. Within the Planning Area, the construction of buildings on the soft, water-saturated sediments of the Delta tracts and Delta lowlands involves a greater number of potential hazards than construction on rock or firm alluvial sites. These soils may exceed 50 percent water by weight and possess a low bearing strength. Studies indicate that some muds exhibit a moderately high stress sensitivity (lose much AJ00'0,ao 21 NORTH 111=16,000' 301%0 r 5 _ Oaaw, KniQn n ot BREMTWOO�-` Prime Soils' - � U 9,r \� Source: Simplified from 1974 Soils Survey of Contra Costa County, prepared by the Soil Conservation Service SOILS Snowing Prime Soils MAP 3 i • their shear strength when disturbed) and they possess a high shrink- swell potential. These properties along with the changes in thickness and grain size over relatively short distances, result in marked engineering problems relating to differential subsidence, regional settlement, and slope instability when loads are imposed on the soils. On the valley floor, the soils characteristically are moderately expansive, possess a moderate to slow permeability, and many possess severe limitations for septic tank leech fields. In the rolling hills in the western portion of the Planning Area, soils possess a moderate to high erosion hazard, depending on the slope. Under bare soils conditions, runoff is medium to rapid, and limitation for septic tanks is severe for some soils. It should be emphasized that the preceeding information on the engineering characteristics of soils in the Planning Area is general- ized from original source materials. Consequently, it is not an indicator of ground conditions on specific sites. Geology (Physical Resources Report, p. 1-30) The rugged hills of the Diablo Range and the flanking San Joaquin Valley are geologically very young. Field evidence clearly indicates that uplift, subsidence, faulting and folding have been a recurring phenomena thorughout this area during the past several million years and these processes can be expected to occur in the future. This crustal activity poses certain problems to human settlement of the East County Planning Area, and the geologic and seismic risks become greater as development pushes into hazardous areas. For example, earthquake-triggered levee failure may not pose an unac- ceptable risk to agriculturally or recreationally oriented land use in the Delta islands, but it is a major obstacle to suburban development of Delta islands. Fault movement, ground shaking, ground failure, landsliding, erosion, sedimentation, flooding and fire are all potentially hazardous to human life, safety, and property. Because of these phenomena an understanding of the nature and distribution of existing or potentially hazardous conditions is essential for harmonious, safe, and efficient land use, facilities and services planning. Faults and Seismicity The Planning Area is situated in a seismically active region. The San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras and Concord faults are located approxi- mately 40, 24, 16 and 15 miles to the west, respectively. Any or all of these active faults could generate earthquakes which could produce damaging levels of ground shaking in the Planning Area. In addition to these known active faults, the seismically active Antioch fault is located near the western boundary of the Planning Area. This fault was the source of a damaging earthquake in 1965, and during 197,!-- 23 • • several small magnitude earthquakes have emanated from the Antioch fault in the Collinsville area. The buried trace of the Midland Fault is' mapped through the Planning Area, trending in a north-south direction (see Map 4). Evidence documenting the movement history of this fault during the recent geologic past is not well established by existing data. However, it is the probable source of severe earthquakes on April 19 and 21, 1892, and should be considered potentially active. A map prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology titled "Earthquake Intensities--Occurrence of Intensities VI-VIII in California from 1810-1969 suggests that eastern Contra Costa County has been impacted by strong (potentially damaging) ground motion 6 to 10 times during historic earthquakes. Seismic Susceptibility The Seismic Safety Element Technical Background Report (TBR) divided the geologic units which occur in the county into four broad categories, according to their susceptibility to damage under earth- quake conditions (see Map 5). This analysis relied on historic reports of damage in the Bay Area as well as the results of theoretical models and studies. This map indicates that the Delta lowlands, including Bethel Island, fall in the category of highest damage susceptibility. However, it should be recognized that the degree of risk varies with site conditions and the seismic susceptibility map is intended only to outline anticipated earthquake effects over broad areas and nbt predict earthquake effects on a specific building site. 7. Hydrology and Water Quality (Physical Resources Report, p. 65-78) Precipitation As a direct result of its height, Mt. Diablo captures more rainfall on its western slopes than would be true for an inland ridge with a lower elevation. East of Mt. Diablo average annual rainfall drops off rapidly to the semi-arid climate of the San Joaquin Valley. The average annual precipitation shows a rather systematic decrease across the Planning Area, from west to east. Average annual rainfall in the eastern foothills of the Diablo Range is approximately 15 inches per year. Along the Contra Costa - San Joaquin County line the average annual rainfall is less than 10 inches per year. Drainage Basins The Planning Area is about equally divided between two large drainage basins, the Marsh Creek watershed and the Kellogg Creek watershed (see Map 6). Marsh Creek drains the eastern flank of the Diablo Range including Morgan Territory and the area to the north and east. After the primary watercourse leaves the Diablo Range it flows in a north-northeasterly direction, toward the San Joaquin River. Tributary streams within the Marsh Creek watershed, including Sand Creek, Deer Creek, Dry Creek and Briones Valley 24 _NORTH Ob Ob 1" = 16,000 oa 1 �A QUI glv ob b , 30� Os 5 b Oc s i 00 Os i Ob Os ,Q}�\ Oz c OC � \ Mu \ Os jam. qnr LEGEND SEDIMENTARY AND \ Of OS��•' METASEDWENTARY ROCXS Q OC �\ 8R£N71W OC Ob QUATERNARY r Of \ Recent G E O• 7... NM •. MV OS Plfisrocfnf •\ 01• Ft. em,a• ,aC}J, ., Cf Or . Of cc Oak DI 0.nw•w*......•r .� ap tin<•<.•.an OG �� O �' TERTIARY Ku .,, c6� Of \'.\ Pliocene \\\ $r4— K M OC ` Miocfnf w. vow W.<w nr.. Ku- . E C? Oligocene KU \ - ' btu \MU Ku Eocene Oal -11 J E r, PC • `i Palfocene ; 'Ku = Ku V E Ob v ..,..<.....» KujJ i Pc Undivided Ku Oc OP CRETACEOUS Ku OCI t Ku FOCI U I e uw....•. C.•x........ ��- R. us•.. c.a.cw.ro w.n.. !'� � Ku Source: .Modified from Geologic Map of California, California Division of Mines & Geology GEOLOGY 0000,1'0 MAP 4 SIN \ ` .•. �11Ya �yt,•� \"`\\ Z' _ •'..;4,:!f' s.,{Nt:.::.• e.._.• yY„�.rtFri, .... NZI ��r \\ gyp\ .��, - •,4•'na^� ��'�1.: S.LK�••:ii�t�ij��i \`�\\��\ ' .r,ny. � 't:as�;9 i^:•^tea:%: �v .:�' \\ \\ \\ 'L��•::.•'Cis. •. •. t,a \ atd., ism�� Safety Se \\\\\\\ -Sogrce sa- IC IL S'USC�p s1g SEISM MAp-5 i � • 1 J�# 10 5 b a ':/-:-:= �� .%':"rte.•R r• _ _„ --` \ VAE gyro -'\ :.- •' ��-V - - -.. a-._ - -�_. ..+ '=��-_.; ::4 •�:i:'.� ...: K �. - '• �t,�X? �� =_ti �-•�,-• - SEK 0()00,1() WRjERs`��DS MAp Creek, convey surface waters easterly until they intersect the main channel of Marsh Creek. Ultimately surface waters in the watershed are discharged into Dutch Slough, immediately east of Big Break. The Kellogg Creek watershed drains the eastern flank of the Diablo Range, south of the Marsh Creek watershed. The primary water- courses within the watershed run in a east-northeasterly direction. All natural, seasonal and irrigation waste runoff water collected within this watershed eventually drain into the San Joaquin River by way of Old River or one of the numerous Delta Sloughs. The main channel of Kellogg Creek discharges into Indian Slough. In their upper reaches creek channels in the East County are characterized by relatively high gradients and the valleys are narrow and V-shaped. In their lower reaches the creeks are confined to channels which are only a few feet lower than the surrounding plain. Natural levees may be present adjacent to creek banks and gradients are low. Under a wide range of conditions the channels are able to convey surface waters to the San Joaquin River without flooding. However, most natural creeks possess segments where the channel is narrow and/or shallow, and in the Delta lowlands drainage is inadequate. Such segments are subject to flooding in the event of a severe storm. Flood Hazard Maps and Programs There-are two sources of information on areas which may-be subject to inundation. One map series is titled "Flood Hazard Boundary Maps". These maps have been promulgated.by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Federal Insurance Adminstration and submitted to Contra Costa County. They delineate "special flood hazard areas" *(i.e. areas which may be inundated by the 100-year flood). The maps suggest that surprisingly little of the East County Planning Area is subject to flooding (see Map 7). The maps are not considered to be a reliable indicator of flood hazard areas, and they are presently being revised by HUD. It is anticipated that the preliminary review flood hazard maps will be submitted to the county during November 1976 for technical review. If the comments of the county do not require extensive changes in the map, revised flood hazard maps should be distributed to the county in February or March 1977 and would go into effect at that time. A formalized procedure for disaster assistance is being administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) through the Disaster Protection Act of 1973. The County is participating in the program, and at the present time new construction in the flood prone areas must be designed to minimize flood damage. Flood insurance, which is required by HUD in the special flood hazard areas, is available to the public at a Federally subsidized rate. At the present time the insurance is not required by HUD for flood prone areas, such as the Delta lowlands. However, insurance is available to 28 North Jolla 1 " = 16,000' So Ootbe Flood Hazard Area Flood Probe Area Knigntsen BRENTWOOD 9 { rro Flood Hazard Area r j Sources: Flood Hazard Area: Flood Hazard Boundary Maps promulgated by HUD (November 1974) Flood Prone Area: U.S.G.S. Interpretive Report 4, SFBRERPS FLOOD PRONE AND FLOOD HAZARD MAP V�VLIl�•V MAP 7 the public in such areas, and many lenders require flood insurance. The Water Resources Division of the U. S. Geological Survey has prepared a map of the San Francisco Bay Region which identifes areas that may be inundated by the 100-year flood (Limerinos, Lee . and Lugo, 1973). These areas are referred to as "flood prone" by the U. S. Geological Survey Map. The U. S. Geological Survey map indicates that the Delta islands and the Delta lowlands (area below an elevation of approximately 10 feet) are flood prone (see Map 7). Reclamation District 800 has submitted data indicating that the elevation of the Byron Tract levee has been raised to provide protection from the 100-year flood. This data has been reviewed by the Michael Baker Company (HUD consultant). In the opinion of the Michael Baker Company, the data contained in the report was inconclusive and they have requested a more sophisticated analysis. Flood Hazard in the Delta According to the Corps of Engineers, the highest recorded flood level in the Delta lowlands of Contra Costa County is 6.1 feet above mean sea level. Ground elevations on the Delta islands range from approximately 10 feet below mean sea level (in the interior of some islands) to more than 10 feet above sea level (on the crest of some levees). A long history of flooding exists in the Delta islands. Studies by the California Department of Water Resources indicates that Bethel Island is subject to flooding 1 to 2 times per 100 years (see report entitled "Delta Levees, What is Their Future," C. D. W. R., 1973). As previously noted, the Delta islands are also within the 100- year flood plain identified by Limerinos, Lee and Lugo in "Flood Prone Area in the San Francisco Bay Region, Water Resources Investigation 37-73, U. S. G. S., 1973." The Safety Element of the County General Plan also identifies Delta islands as an area which is subject to flooding. According to a 1976 survey conducted by the County Public Works Department, most of the Bethel Island levee system possesses a crestal elevation of at least 9.5+ feet. However, there are reaches of levee on the Island which possess crestal elevations less than 9.5 feet. The Army Corps has recommended that the minimum height for the levees surrounding Bethel Island be 9.2 feet (mean sea level datum). This height would be sufficient to protect against the 100 year flood stage with two feetof freeboard. As further urban development occurs on Bethel Island, the Corps has recommended a minimum levee height of 10.5 feet. These differences in levee height standards reflect the varying degrees of risk posed to agricultural and urbanized islands, respectively. It is important to recognize that historically the flooding of Delta islands has resulted from levee failure rather than overtopping of the levee crown. Therefore, elevating the crown of a levee to a specified height (e.g. to the elevation standards of the Corps of Engineers) is no guarantee that the area protected by a particular levee is no longer subject to inundation. The vast majority 30 of Delta levees are non-project levees In other words these are non- engineered structures which do not meet the present design standards of the Contra Costa County Flood Control District or the Army Corps of Engineers. Major efforts at improving the structural cross- sections of levees will be delayed until such time that the Corps, together with the State Department of Water Resources, develop a construction program for levee stability improvement. As previously mentioned, levee improvement is important because the majority of levee failures are due to piping and seepage through the levee cross- section rather than overtopping of the levee crown. Water Quality: Ground water quality in the East County Planning Area is suspect. For example, Table 6 shows the results of analysis of three separate water supplies on Bethel Island, along with the corresponding U. S. Public Health Service (U. S. P. H. S.) permissible criteria. The manganese concentration in each of the three well supplies referenced exceeds the U. S. P. H. S. criteria. The drinking water standards recommended that the total dissolved solids (TDS) not exceed 500 milligrams per liter where other more suitable supplies are available. As noted in Table 6, the TDS of all three supplies exceeds 800 milligrams per liter. This may be characteristic of all ground water supplies in the area. High TDS levels are objectionable because of physiological effect, mineral taste, and/or economic effect because of deposits accumulating in appliances. Moderately hard water can be defined as having a hardness between 60 and 120 milligrams per liter as CaCO (calcium carbonate). The water supply for Bethel Island indicate a hardness ranging from about 200 to 500 mg/l. A hardness of more than 300 to 500 milligrams per liter CaCO3, is excessive for a public water supply. The excessive hardness wllI cause excess soap consumption and objectionable scale in heating vessels and pipes. The boron concentration in the Willow Park Marina supply is greater than twice the permissible level established by the U. S. P. H. S. However, this single sample should not be taken as representative all the ground water supplies within the Planning Area without further .quality analysis. The ingestion of large amounts of boron can affect the central nervous system. The total iron concentration in the Pleasant Times Water System on Bethel Island is 2.42 milligrams per liter. This exceeds U. S. P. H. S. permissible criteria. Both iron and manganese are highly objection- able for either domestic or industrial use. The domestic user objects to the brownish color which iron imparts to laundered goods as well as its effects on the taste of beverages. In addition, high iron concentrations and chlorine can create a cloudy solution objection- able to the consumer. 31 TABLE 6 ANALYSES OF SELECTED DOMESTIC WELL 5UPPLIE5 BETHEL ISLAND AREA Service Area USPHS permissible Beacon West Willow Park Pleasant Times criteria Constituent Subdivision Marina Water.System mg/1 pH 8.1 7.9 7.8 6.0-8.5 Alkalinity as CaCO3 218.3 274.0 263.0 30.0-500.0 Aluminum 0.5 - - - Boron 0.025 2.29a - 1.0 Calcium 122.9 36.6 95.0 - Chloride 74.8 171.0 292.0 250.0 Chromium 0.5 0.014 - 0.05 Copper 0.05 0.002 - 1.0 Fluoride 0.4 0.3 0.10 0.8-1.7 Iron 0.1 0.069 2.42(total)a 0.3 Magnesium 48.8 21.4 "50.9 Manganese 0.16a 0-061a 0.40a 0.05 Silica 35.6 - - - Sodium 90.0 201.0 132.0 - Sulfate 103.3 - 103.0 42.3 250.0 Total dissolved Solids 882.0 800.0 960.0 960.Qa'c 500.0 Total hardness as CaCO3 508.1a 181.0 446.0 300.0-500.0 Zirrc 0.1 - - 5.0 Nitrate plus Nitrite as Nitrogen - 0.508 0.40(NO 3-N) 10.0 (as N) Color - 7.0 - 75.0 Odor (Threshold Odor Number) - 2.0 - - Temperature 13 deg. C - - Turbidity, JTU - 0.7 - - Arsenic - 0.012 0.05 Foaming Agents - 0.008 Potassium - - 6:6 . - Phosphorus - 0.041 aValues exceeding the USPHS permissible criteria. _ b640 x E. C. x 103 = TDS, Ppm cTotal Solids. . dWell located at north end of Bethel Island Road. - eWell located on Sand Mound Boulevard near Willow Park Marina. f Well located near the intersection of Stone and Gateway Roads. SOURCE: Project report for construction of water pollution control facilities 1974-75 for the Contra Costa County Sanitation District Number 15 (prepared by Y-T-O and Associates, Engineering. Consultants) . 32 The TDS and chloride concentrations are considerably higher in the adjoining sloughs than in the domestic water wells summarized in Table b. The higher salinity in the tidal waters can be expected to slowly deteriorate the quality of Bethel Island groundwater. It should be recognized that ground water quality on Bethel Island should not be as representative of ground water supplies throughout the Planning Area without a more detailed analysis. It can be stated, however, that water wells for Discovery Bay exceeded the U. S. P. H. S. standards for iron (total), total dissolved solids (TDS), manganese and boron. The similarities between Bethel Island ground water supplies and Discovery Bay ground water supplies suggests that the relatively high concentration of iron, TDS, manganese and boron may be a basin-wide rather than a localized problem. Existing surface water quality is subject to seasonal fluctuations. Winter floods carry heavy sediment load, increased nitrate fertilizer residue, pesticides and other synthetic chemicals, which are gener- ated with the runoff from agricultural lands. Irrigation return water, recreational wastes by boats and people, and chloride concentration increased by salinity encroachment from the Bay may be the main pollutants during summers. Since the construction of Shasta Dam in 1944, maximum salinity intrusion has been limited to about 1,000 parts per million (ppm) of chlorides at Jersey Point above Antioch'by controlled releases. Bethel Island is close to this limit but is nevertheless susceptible to salt water intrusion. Specifically, Jersey Point is the main channel of the San Joaquin River. Increasing the release of water from Lake Shasta serves to flush the Delta, and prevent salt water intrusion. However, this flushing action is less effective in protecting the slow moving waters of sloughs, such as Dutch Slough, from salt water intrusion. Salt water intrusion, when it occurs, carries the danger of salt concentration in soils and contamination of ground water supplies. The combination of the above factors suggest that there may be a need for an alternate domestic water supply in the next few decades. Certainly its present quality is not good and indications are that it will worsen in the future. Suburban growth in the East County should be planned on the basis that treated water suitable for domestic use shall become a required public facility. With regard to agriculture, there are three major points that should be made: 1. The salinity of Delta waters must be reduced if agriculture is to remain viable in the East County Planning Area. Orchards and row crops cannot tolerate high chloride content waters. 2. The ground water quality in East County is rich in boron and other dissolved solids. Consequently it is not suitable for irrigation of most agricultural crops. 33 U000m p 3. In the East Contra Costa Irrigation District economic factors have caused many farmers to convert orchards to row crops. Since row crops require six times as much water as orchards, the demand for irrigation water has rapidly escalated in recent years. During the warm, dry summer growing season, all available canal water is being used for irrigation. The quality and quantity of irrigation water are factors which must be resolved if commercial agriculture is to remain dominant in the East County Planning Area. 8. Vegetation and Wildlife (Physical Resources Report p. 79-91) The Brentwood plain and Delta lowland areas of the East County are intensively farmed with row crops, field crops and orchards. The smaller interior valleys in the western portion of the Planning Area lack a dependable water supply and are used for dry farmed grain and range. There are very few areas where remnants of the native vegetation exist. These include portions of the rugged, uplands in the western part of the Planning Area. These hills contain stands of blue oak woodland vegetation within areas generally covered .by annual grasses. Old River and Delta sloughs contain localized natural areas which contain Freshwater Marsh vegetation, commonly associated with a disturbed riparian vegetation. The distribution of the various vegetation types in the East County is shown in Map 8. The occurrence and characteristic species of each vegetation type is summarized in Table 7. There are several rare, endangered or locally depleted species of plants and animals which are either known or believed to occur in the Planning Area. These animals and plants are listed in Table 8, along with a summary of available information on their status, characteris- tics, and habitat. The following is a list of sites within the Planning Area which are proposed by the California Natural Areas Coordinating Council (CNACC) for inclusion with the Governor's report on California areas of Environmental Concern (proposed for completion in December, 1976). Proposed Natural Areas (CNACC) Natural Area Outstanding Features Frank's Tract A flooded, formerly levee-encircled Delta island. Freshwater marsh and 34 Natural Area Outstanding Features riparian woodland habitats on borders, Delta aquatic habitat within. Good spawning area for fish (striped bass, largemouth bass, white catfish, others). Possible habitat for rare giant garter snake. Mink, and beaver are known to occur in area. Byron Hot Springs Alkali mud flats, salt marsh and hot mineral springs. A unique snail (Helm inthoglypta contracostae) inhabits the area. The site of an old resort-spa, now in disrepair. A recently created shallow lake has enhanced the habitat for wildlife. The grassland hills to the west support the rare and endangered San Joaquin kit fox. The state's Delta Master Recreation Plan has identified Big Break and Old River islands as "wildlife and scenic areas" which should be preserved and/or managed in the public interest. Big Break is a flooded, formerly levee-encircled delta island which is an aquatic habitat for wildlife and fish. It is bounded to the south by a marsh. The Old River islands are small overflow islands in the channel of Old River which are partially a freshwater marsh wildlife habitat and partially a riparian woodland wildlife habitat. 9. Wildfire The natural vegetation and dry farmed grain areas in the western and southwestern portion of the Planning Area are extremely flammable during the late summer and fall. Wildfire is a serious hazard, particularly to large lot homesites with extensive areas of unirrigated vegetation around them. The County Safety Element discourages development of areas identified by .the criteria of the State Division of Forestry as having an Extreme Fire Hazard (see Contra Costa County Safety Element, p. 55-56). A unique hazard to the Delta lowlands is peat fire. Once ignited, peat soils may smolder for weeks or months and are extremely difficult to extinguish. Not only is the smoke objectionable to the public, but the fire can endanger public improvements and private property. 10. Open Space 'Excluding agriculture, the East County Area General Plan identifies the following two categories of Open Space: (1) Recreation, and (2) ' Water Areas. Together these categories contain approximately 15,757 acres of land and water area (see East County Area General Plan, p. 37.) This represents approximately 13% of the Planning Area. 0000 .0 35 4 NORTH 1'" = 16,000' l wasr �A Oy'A R So 41aY W�14 3 e.r•su \ •`• BRENTW4QD J W�fMM �t t V O Byron LEGEND TYPE NUMBERS MIO Ou?"I''MMS 2 GRASSLAND ` .� Croon awr as as wwsr ays.psm .� •� , _ S CUVWATED Am URBAN i imn a=aa7.naWw!las.CanaPand . Ym wp�-/M anal l t l l t SAGEBRUSH l taw sMla• •\ S CNAMME CNAPMI4AL Dos—am zaoonal 5 CHAPARRAL 44"",atl l 8 WOODLAND-GRASS T=ats.4"awa a/Voss • .r""- . .. a VEdtTATION MAP 8 TABLE 7 VEGETATION TYPES EAST COUNTY AREA Type Occurrence Characteristic-Species Freshwater Marsh Localized areas within Delta Common rule (Stir us acutus) waterways, including small California bulrush S. californicus) overflow islands in the channel of Cattail (Typha spp.) Old River and some Delta sloughs. Sedge (Carex spp.) Open Grassland Occurs largely in the rolling hills. Fescue (Festuca spp.) (Annual grasses and herbs, that comprise the.western and Brome (Bromus spp.) both native and intro- southwestern portions of the Plan- Wild oats Avena spp.) duced) ning Area. Clover (Trifolium spp.) Lupine (Lupinus spp.) Bird's foot trefoil (Lotus sub innatus) Filaree (Erodium spp. Mustard Brassica spp.) Blue-dicks Brodiaea ulchella) Mariposa-lily Calochortus venustus) Blue Oak Woodland Localized areas within the Blue oak (Quercus Dou lasii) open grassland vegetative Interior live oak . Wislizenii) type. Valley oak ((L. lobata grassy understory Disturbed Riparian Localized areas along banks of Arroyo willow (Salix lasiole is) Altered and diminished Old River and other Delta Red tree willow S. laevigata from historical riparian Waterways. Also includes Sycamore (Platanus racemosa) due to extensive recla- localized areas along peri- Fremont cottonwood Po ulus Fremontii) mation in the Delta and phery of lakes and ponded Box elder (Acer negundo flood control projects areas within Delta Islands. along stream channels) Agricultural and Occurs in the central, eastern Field crops (i.e. barley, corn Urban northeastern portion of Planning sugar beets), vegetable and (Areas used for dry Area, including Delta tracts seed crops (i.e. asparagus, farming, irrigated and Brentwood Plain. Also cabbage, tomatoes), fruit f ields, orchards, vine- includes the floor of upland and nut crops (i.e. almonds, yards, disturbed ground; valleys on western and southwest cherries, grapes), nursery pro- urban growth areas) portion of Planning Area. ducts, livestock and poultry, and diverse urban species. 37 0000 l 0 TABLES :2.A04DANGERF13 AND/OR UNIQUE VILDLIFE AND PLANTS: EAST r Status Desc-taum General Habitat and LouLrv, Remarks FISH 1.•Thicktail cnuo Recommended rare Stocky chub with short cone- Lowiand raters of Central Valley May exist in Delta waters: Gills crassicauaa (Fish Jr Gamete may shApiee'lead.Dusky above. Reeding to Bakersfield not collected since 1930 be extinct sslyery xlow. (Rio Vista - 2. Sacramento perch Depleted(Fish ar Sunfish with spuhes on back Crig:nally abundant in sloughs and A scarce species;may Ar� nphites inter- Game) and:neer tail. Blackisn above. slow.movtrig charnels.n Central exist in Delta waters. ruptus silvery on sides and below. Valley region. AMPHIBIANS 1. California red- Under study(Fish,t Largest western native frog Secludes marshes,.slow Parts of Has been identified in secluded legged frog Game. 0").Brownmsn back with black streams and ponds in wooded areas East County streams Rata aurora Depleted(international splotaies Red lower abdomen in!oothdls or graastands in Coastal draytom Union for Conservation and:ndersices of legs Prominent and Central VaL'ey region. of Nature and Natural dorsal folds on head. Resources(IUCN) REPTILES 1. Giant garter Rave(Fish dr Game) Larger garter snake(eh'L Dull Floor of Centra!Valley from Sacra-, ' May occur in Delta marshesand snake brown with balck checkered pat- mento-Antioch to Buena Vista Lake; charnels in northeast portion Thamncphis tern on back.Dull yellow stripe freshwater marsh. of East County. couchi atKas On back. ..2. NortI m brown Locally depleted Slim-bodies olive or brown liz- GrassLar4 woodland at forest roar Secluded streams skink-- and with Luny scales Young wet areas in isolated locations in Eumeces edberti have bright blue tails. California. p4r2rensus 3. Western pond Locally depleted Aquatic nestle with dark back Aquatic habitats of Sierra-Cascade. Ponds.lakes and streams. turtle (carapace)and yellow belly Gemmvs marmor- (plastron)blotched with black_ ata .. ._. BIRDS - - - 1. Burrowing owl Status undetermined. Snell brown Owl with long Open grasslands.Praitim dikes.de-. Grassland or rangeland. Soeonm canmcularu (Fuse a Game) featherless legs.rand head. serfs,and farms in western I.I.S. particularly;n southwest cues Locally depleted. %tubby tail portion of Fast Canty. 2. Golden eagle Locally depleted. Large eagle(6-E'wing span). Open mountains.foothills.canyons. Hints in most of area. Aquila crysaems Mostly dark coloration when aro plana throughout U.S.and camoents mature.some white when Canada. .... young. 3. White-tailed kite Depleted.restricted Falcon shaped.dearly all Open foothLIL%river Valleys and Delta and lowland area. Vanus leuctrtn to California UUCN) white-gray with black-tipped marshes Originally throughout U.S. wings. now only in,California. ... MAMMALS 1.-astiser xua Locally depleted. Low,squat.racoon-sizednd Open grasslands adeserts in Secluded grassland. bt"nuh gray above.bushy western and central U.S. tail.black and Mire markings an head. 2. Beaver Lowly depleted. Largest rodent(30-60 lbs.) Streams air takes throughout much Selected Delta waters.. ._.. .....Castor eanaderois in North America.Rich brown of U.S.and Canada. tura flat naked taiL Huge front teeth. 3. Mink Locally depleted. Rich beo.m wease14ike Along streams and takes throughout Delta waters. Mustela vision animal wmtn small white chin much of US.AM Canada. patch. - L.Ornatashrew - Dually depleted. Smelt.graytsn brown shoes. Along streams,in wei meadows and Streams and marines. .._., Sores omatus pie Derwinu bnsn-covered fulls in central and . eui�ammcus southern California 3. River otter Locally depleted. Large.weasel-tike animal Scattered throughout US and May exist in Dela Lutm carudenu (3'long/_Ricn brown above. Canada along nven,aee ks region. . silvery beneath. and fake borders. .. 6. San 3oaquin Kit Fox Rare(Fish Y Came) Samll tar-vay fax with very Rangeland and non-agricultural Rangeland and grassland .... . V_ulpes maeotis Endangered(Fed. large ears,black-upped grassland lowlands in San,3oagwn in southwestern portion muthca Government) tail,and tong legs. Valley. of Fist Cana. ENDANGERED PLANT SPEC.ES 1. Brewer dwarf flax Threatened(Fed)- Annual bush a-16'high;%lander Over Coast Ranges.Vats Mrs.to Cressy,or brushy slopes, - rlespet iron Endangered(CNP9'e nddun stems;small narrow Mt.Diablo. 400-3300'. . evern (eaves;tiny yellow flower - with 3 petals. 2. Caper-fruited Rare.not endangered Slender branched nary ansa) Region about the foot of Mt.Diablo. Opens grassland.alkaline low _ tropidocarpum (CLAPS) here,1-10' feather-like leaves: hills bel"300'. Trogxlft rpkm Threatened(FedJ small yellow:lovers borne in capdandeum dusters. .. 3. Contra Cosa Endangered(Fed.) Erect Annual 1erb.one 9 several East bate of Mr.Diablo. Dry slope%at edge of Chaparral. eriogonun Very,rate,end.(C;PS) stemmed 4..i2�hairy;oolong lo00'-1300'. E•noconun leaves;my rose-colored flowers - .r ncarum borne in small clusters. a. Diablo heiiandxlL Rare.end.(C.NPS) Arcual tarn 34';mashed heart- Lower Sacramrs-o and San Joaqun Mont banks in freshwav r marsh. I-WHantheila castar ea Enowlered(Fed.) shaped iesves;snooty wrute or Rivers_ pwulah flowers.10 crimson centers each -Federal aes:gnanon "-Canfornu Skaave Pant Society deu rutin. - Source: Compiled by Conde Cues Canty Manning Oeparanenc 38 Recreation The East County Area Plan indicates that a major objective of the plan is the preservation of the natural recreational resources. Recreational areas identified in the plan include the following: 1. Frank's Tract State Park Recreation Area: The Plan reflects the state program of park land development. 2. Clifton Court Forebay: The Plan supports_ further development of a wider variety of recreation facilities. 3. Wildlife and Scenic Areas: The Plan reflects the state's Delta Master Recreation Plan. Big Break and Old River Islands are identified as areas which should be preserved and receive special management. The Plan also recommends that neighborhood and community parks be provided within the planned and recreational communities. The John Marsh Home and surrounding area is identified as a potential park facility, and Byron Hot Springs is identified as an area suitable for private recreational development. Water Areas Much of the Planning Area is part of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, an area laced with a variety of waterways, including sloughs, rivers and lakes. The waterways open for public use and not in private ownership are considered permanent open space. In recognition of the ecological value of Big Break, the State Division of Fish and Games has proposed making Big Break a wildlife management area. Additionally, East Bay Regional Park District has expressed interest in Big Break as a regional shoreline park. 11. Socioeconomic Considerations (Population Characteristics Back- ground Report, 41 p. Population Characteristics The Planning Area covers a total of 183.68 square miles and had a 1975 population density of 82 persons per square mile. The low population density, combined with a consistent but gradual population growth, characterize the generally rural-suburban nature of the area. The population is largely concentrated in small communities (Brent- wood, Byron, Bethel Island, Oakley and Knightsen) primarily oriented to Highway 4. The 1970 Census indicated a population of approxi- mately 13,889 in the Planning Area. Brentwood, the largest and only incorporated community in the Planning Area, had a 1970 population of 2,649 persons. The 1975 population of the Planning Area was 15,228. 39 The population growth in East County is attributable to both natural increase (i.e. a surplus of births over deaths) and net in-migration (The difference between the number of people moving into an area over the number of people leaving it). Available data indicates that during the period 1960 to 1970, 39 percent of the area's population increase was due to net in-migration, which means that the remaining 61 percent is directly attributable to natural increase. The main population movements affecting the East. County appear to be a substantial outward migration of young adults and a lesser inward migration of middle-aged persons. Population Projections and Holding Capacity It is difficult to make a precise estimate-of the population holding capacity of the East County under the policies of the proposed East County Area Plan. However, it is apparent that the population holding capacity is greatly expanded over that allowed under the 1963 General Plan. The 1990 population of the Planning Area is'not expected to exceed 25,000 persons. This appears to be less than 50 percent of the population holding capacity of the East County Planning Area. Income Characteristics Historically, income of Planning Area residents, both families and individuals, were consistently lower than the county median income for these groups. The lower median income for area residents may be a reflection of the historically lower incomes of rural populations engaged in agriculture. High incomes are usually associated with urban employment, and while many East County residents may work in the more urbanized parts of the county, few commute to highly paid jobs outside the county. For example, 40 to 49 percent of the Pleasant Hill area work force commutes to jobs outside the county, while only 11 percent of the Planning Area's work force commutes to jobs outside the county. The county median is 38.8 percent. Like many semi-rural areas, the Planning-Area has experienced an out-migration of young adults who leave to seek employment and education opportunities elsewhere. In part, this migration results in a loss to local median family, and individual incomes since many of these persons are in their prime working years and would be earning incomes high enough to help raise the area's incomes if they remained and could find equivalent employment locally. The area has also experienced an in-migration of retired persons, especially in the Bethel Island area which reported the lowest median family income. Many of these people have comparatively low retirement incomes, which tends to lower median income and maintain the.Planning Area below the countywide rate. 40 • . s Agricultural Development The economy of eastern Contra Costa County is based primarily on agricultural and related industries. According to 1970 figures the East County area contains approximately 40 percent of the county's agricultural land and produced a gross income of $22.4 million, 73 percent of the county's agricultural total. As a whole, the acreage in agricultural production in Contra Costa County declined during the 1960-70 period, dropping from 299,954 acres in 1960 to 244,705 acres in 1970. Figures for 1975 indicate that the trend is continuing, with Iands in agricultural production amounting to less than 230,000 acres. As might be expected, the decline is also evident in the East County. For example, vegetable acreage declined 54 percent from 15,576 acres in 1960 to 7,158 acres in 1970. Fruit and nut crop acreage in the East County area declined about 35 percent over the same period of time. There are a number of factors which discourage the retention of commercial agriculture in the Planning Area. These include: 1. Labor costs are generally higher than in other areas of California and the United States. This is partially due to the availability of industrial jobs and a higher pay scale. 2. Land values are higher resulting in higher taxes. 3. Water costs are higher than average. 4. Farming small parcels results in higher per acre operating costs. As a result of these factors, there has been incentive to convert agricultural land into ranchettes through a succession of minor subdivisions until the minimum parcel size allowed under the A-2 zoning is achieved. The result has been a hodge-podge of scatter, unplanned development. Moreover, through use of the minor subdivision process the subdivider avoids the requirements for development plans and improvements which are routinely imposed on major subdivisions. This often results in inadequate public facilities. The intrusion of residential development into an agricultural area further challenges the "survival" of the remaining commercial agricultural parcels in the area, accelerating the breakdown of parcel size. Housing Housing in East County is characterized by a high proportion of single family dwellings and mobile homes, a relatively low level of home ownership, and a housing supply which is both older and less expensive than.the County average. In addition, with respect to the rest of the County, East County is an area of significant housing need as 00000 o 41 reflected in its high levels of overcrowding, inadequate plumbing facilities, and renter "overpayment" (an indication that housing demand far exceeds the supply). In 1975, the Planning Area population of 15,200 was housed in 5,900 dwelling units with an average household size of 2.57 persons. Approximately 76% of the dwellings were single family units, 10.8% were multiples, and the remaining 13.3% were mobile homes and group quarters. The level of homeownership was 65%, somewhat below the countywide average of 70%. Housing age data tabulated by the 1970 Census reveal a high proportion of the area's housing is relatively old. In 1970, 64.4% of the area's dwellings were more than 20 years old and 35.9% .were more than 30 years old. Both home values and rents are considerably lower in East County than in the remainder of the County. In 1970, median home value in East County was 21% lower than the Countywide median, and median rents were 43% lower. As would be expected in an area with a relatively low median income and an aging housing stock, East County has significant need for improved housing quality. This need is primarily concentrated among the area's low and moderate income residents. In 1970, 11.1% of the area's housing was lacking some or all plumbing facilities; the Countywide figure was 3.4%. In addition, the Planning Area's level of overcrowding (defined as 1.01 or more persons per room) was.11.6%, more than twice the Countywide figure of 5.5%. 12. Air Quality (Physical Resources Report, p. 45-64) The DuPont plant is the only significant stationary source of air pollution in the Planning Area. Nevertheless, air quality in the Planning Area is not considered good. To some extent, air quality in the Planning Area is adversely affected by locally generated traffic and agricultural operations. However, more significant is the importation of contaminants by the predominantly westerly winds blowing through Carquinez Strait. Therefore, the East County is exposed to pollutants produced by the PUttsburg-Antioch industrial complex as well as pollutants which characterize the San Francisco air basin as a whole. Additionally, oxidant-rich. air from the Livermore Valley has a pronounced adverse affect on air quality in the southern portion of the Planning Area. Air quality is most severely affected by high oxidant-concentrations and other contaminants when the strong stability of air masses and high temperatures combine to trigger an inversion. The ability of meterological conditions to effect sharp changes in air quality, by as much as ten-fold from day to day, can be seen in the data gathered by the BAAPCD monitoring stations over the past decade (see the monthly publication of the BAAPCD entitled "Contaminant and Weather Summary"). 42 There are no air quality monitoring stations in the Planning Area. The nearest Bay Area Air Pollution Control District (BAAPCD) monitoring station is located in Pittsburg. According to Mr. Ted McHugh of the BAAPCD, air quality information from the Pittsburg monitoring station is applicable to the Planning Area. However, because of the concentration of heavy industry intervening area between the Pittsburg station and the Planning Area, and the prevailing westerly winds, the district believes that air quality in at least the northern portion of the Planning Area may be worse than the readings at Pittsburg would indicate. To serve as an example of air quality in the Planning Area, oxidant levels at the Pittsburg station reached a maximum of .15 ppm (parts per million) in 1974. On thirty days during the summer months of 1974 (May through September) oxidant levels exceeded the Federal oxidant standard of .08 ppm. On twenty one days in 1974 oxidant levels exceeded .1 ppm. (An oxidant level of .1 ppm is considered the eye irritation threshold; the BAAPCD episode stage criteria are summarized in Table 9). Another contaminant which is monitored by BAAPCD3 is suspended particulate matter. The district standard of 100,,u g/m (micrograms per cubic meter) for 24 hours was exceeded on 5 percent of the observed days at the Pittsburg station guring 1974. On the average, the Pittsburg station recorded 50 m g/m for 24 hours. During 1975 air quality at the Pittsburg monitoring station was improved for essentially all contaminants over the preceeding year. To some extent this improvement may be a result of emission reduction and District regulations. However the sharpness of decrease indicates a heavy meterological factor. In summary, the BAAPCD states that at issue is not maintenance of applicable air quality standards but the attainment of the standards. It is largely on this rationale that the District has denied the applications of ARCO Polymers, Inc., and Dow for major industrial facilities in Solano County. Air quality in the Planning Area is not good and may be deteriorating. To a considerable extent, the sources of contaminants are located outside of the Planning Area. 13. Noise (Contra Costa County Noise Element, August 1975) The County Noise Element identifies Highway 4, Lone Tree Way and the Byron Highway (south of Highway 4) as the only significant noise sources in the East County Planning Area. The 1975 Noise Contour map series indicates that property fronting on each of these roads is impacted by noise levels exceeding 60 dB on the Community Noise Equivalency Level (CNEL) scale. The state identifies 60 dB as a threshold value, above which special design features are warranted to protect occupants of certain types of structures from exterior 00()0ilo sources of noise. Acoustical engineers anticipate that noise levels generated by vehicles will actually decease in the future with 43 TABLE 9 BAY AREA A AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT'' EPISODE STAGE CRITERIA Oxidant Carbon Monoxide Sulfur Dioxide Averaging Time 1 Hour 1 Hour 12 Hours 1 Hour, 24 Hours Smog _ Advisory , Alert 0.20 ppm 40 ppm 20 Ppm 0.5 ppm 0.2 ppm Warning 0.35 ppm 75 ppm 35 ppm - l'.0 y ppm 0.7 ppm Emergency 0.50 ppm* 100 ppm* 50 ppm 2.0- ppm 0.9 ppm *And predicted to persist for one additional hour. SOURCE: Air Currents, August, 1975, Bay Area Air`-Polltrtion Control'District. . i 44 advances in technology and as higher standards are imposed on the industry. Consequently, the County Noise Element projects that 1990 noise levels along each of the previously mentioned noise corridors will be slightly lower than present noise levels. 14. Historical and Archaeological Aspects Native American Groups The East County area is located very near the tribal ' or dialect boundaries of at least five separate California Indian groups, including Karkins, Saklan (Bay Miwok), Plains Miwok, Northern Yokuts and Southern Wintun. Sources of information on these groups is based largely on mission records, explorers' diaries and early maps. Within the Planning Area itself, the history of the Native Americans is not well documented as few artifacts have been collected and written records are sketchy and incomplete. The available informa- tion does indicate that the Saclan ranged through the central and east County area, spoke Miwok and manufactured portable mortar and pestles for trade. They were defeated by the Spansih in 1797 and again in 1800. The Karkin lived on both sides of Carquinez Strait and are known to have extended at least as far upriver as Suisun Bay. They spoke Costanoan and controlled east-west river traffic and north-south obsidian trade. The tule balsa canoe was used by Bay Area Indian tribes which were oriented toward the river. . All of the Indian groups in the County were dependent upon gathering wild plants (including oak acorns), fishing and hunting for food. Apparent- ly, they lived in small villages or hamlets which served as ancestral homes. However the people of the village would move from place to place as the seasons (i.e. availability of food and water) dictated. Each tribe had its own dialect or variations of a dialect, and did not associate with other tribes. Archaeologic Sites There-are 25 recorded archaeological sites within the Planning Area. Most of these sites are located in the Delta lowlands, several of which are in the Bethel and Hotchkiss Tracts areas. Because the Delta was a frequently flooded rule swamp in the period immediately preceding the Spanish conquest, the higher sand mounds were used as habitation and burial sites by the Indians. Large numbers of burial sites, including those on Bethel Island, do not seem to relate to the late prehistoric occupation of the area. It is concluded by Cook and Elasasser (1956)* that many of the sand mound burials may be 1,500 to 3,500 years old. *Cook, S. F. and A. B. Elasasser - Burials in Sand Mounds of the Delta Region of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River System. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports, No. 57: 1-24. Berkeley, California. 45 U00U1x U There are several recorded archaeologic sites located along the bank of Marsh Creek and Kellogg Creek. This is not surprising because of the importance of the creeks as sources of water and the availability of edible plants and wildlife for food in such areas. The significance of the recorded sites is highly variable, and some of the sites have not been thoroughly analyzed. It is reasonable to assume that there are undiscovered archaeologic resources in the Planning Area. The future discovery of an archaeologic materials in the East County has the potential to fill in some of the gaps in our knowledge of Native Americans. Historic Resources The Preliminary Historic Resources Inventory (1976), prepared by Contra Costa County, identifies 21 historical sites in East Contra Costa County. The majority of these sites are considered to be structures of historic significance; the remainder are classified as sites of historic events. The most renowned historic site in the Planning Area is the John Marsh Home, located on Marsh Creek Road approximately 2S4 miles southwest of Brentwood. The home was completed in 1856 and it is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. 15. Energy Conservation On the national level, the residential sector accounts for 20 percent of annual energy consumption in the U: S. Space conditioning is the major component of residential energy consumption, requiring a substantial portion of the available energy resources devoted to residential use (approximately 31 percent). As the United States strives for energy independence, residential space conditioning, is an important candidate for conservation measures. Three basic factors are important in. the determination of energy requirements for space conditioning in residential buildings. These include location, the type of housing and the construction standards being followed. Because there are several different climate types in the county, energy needs for space conditioning vary considerably with location. Heating and cooling loads can be expressed as yearly,degree day loads. For this purpose, 65 degrees Farenheit is accepted as the outdoor temperature at which no heating or cooling is required in buildings. When the temperature is 65 degrees outdoors;it is usually comfortable inside, with no space conditioning required. When the temperature is below 65 degrees, the number of degrees difference between the average temperature and 65 degrees is the heating degree day load. 46 __ , All climates in the county require winter heating but East County requirements are approximately 25% lower .than the.coolest areas (Lafayette, Moraga, and Orinda). According to study entitled "Energy Use and Conservation in Contra Costa County" (Vol I, p. 9), Oakley, Brentwood, and Byron have the lowest heating degree day loads in the county (2500). The East County has the highest cooling degree day loads in the county (900-1100). The need for summer air conditioning exists if comfortable indoor temperatures are to be maintained. Energy consumption for space conditioning is affected by insulation and ventilation. The orientation of the structure and landscaping are additionally factors which affect energy consumption. The East County Planning Area is an agricultural district with approximately 6,000 housing units. There is relatively little industry and business in the East County. As noted earlier in this report, the majority of the housing stock in the East County was constructed more than 20 years ago, a period of design which did not emphasize energy conservation. The limited employment base in the Planning Area and its remote location on the fringe of the San Francisco Bay Area results in long, energy-inefficient commutes by private automo- bile to employment centers in Antioch, the central county and the Oakland-San Francisco area. II. Environmental Impact Analysis f A. The Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action 1. Viability of Agriculture If the prime agricultural land in the East County is to be retained for commercial agriculture, the County must take positive steps to create preserves that can withstand development pressure. The proposed Area Plan recommends the creation of a 14,583 acre "Agriculture Core". It should be stressed that adoption of this recommendation will not ensure the survival of commercial agricul- ture in East County, and it does not give any special consideration to agricultural lands which fall outside of the "Agriculture Core". It can be considered a positive step toward control of the pattern of urban development in the Planning Area. However, if the plan is to achieve its stated objective of retaining commercial agriculture, the mini- mum allowable parcel size in the Agriculture Core must be increased. The proposed plan must also be given consideration by taxing agencies and the Assessor (e.g. Agricultural lands are taxed to support BART). If further subdivision of land in the Agriculture Core is discouraged, if urban growth is directed into the Planned Communities, and if land in the Agriculture Core is taxed on the basis of its agricultural productivity, the viability of commercial agriculture will be greatly enhanced. 47 2. Uneconomical Parcel Size and the Cost of Operations One of the problems that farmers in the East County area face is the small size of parcels, particularly in the East Contra Costa County Irrigation District, where 64 percent of all parcels and 23 percent of the total acreage are in parcels of less than 10 acres in size. In the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District 42 percent of all parcels and 6 percent of the total acreage are in parcels less than 10 acres in size. Where parcels are of 10 acres or less, it is more expensive to farm the land because of the higher cost of moving the farm equipment from parcel to parcel and the limitation of the manner in which insecticides and fertilizer may be distributed. In the case of row crops where mechanical harvesting is generally carried out, a small parcel cannot support the cost of using the machinery. It should also be recognized that the relatively small minimum parcel size which is proposed by the plan encourages the continued growth of residential uses in commercial agriculture areas. Such uses have a low tolerance for one another. For example, pesticides, odor and flies common to livestock operations are objectionable to adjoining residences. Con- versely, the presence of nearby residential uses makes it more difficult for farmers. and ranchers to carry out their agricultural operations. Based on the preceeding considerations it is apparent that the continuing fragmentation of parcel size will have a decidedly negative impact on the viability of agriculture. In this regard, the proposed plan fails to recommend a minimum parcel size which will encourage the retention of agricultural uses. 3. Absence of Guidelines in Agriculture Residential The proposed plan does not establish any criteria or guidelines for evaluating the appropriateness of subdivision applications in areas designated "Agriculture Residential". Premature development of outlying portions of the "Agriculture Residential" area could result in scattered, unplanned, inefficient and potentially hazardous develop- ment. For example, the southwest portion of the Planning Area is exposed to extreme wildfire hazard during the late summer and early fall. According to the safety element, major developments should not be approved if fire fighting services are not available or are not adequate for the area. Hopefully, consideration of fire hazards would also be accorded to smaller projects.. Other factors which should be considered include compatibility with surrounding land use, wildlife resources, agricultural capability of soils, mineral resources, flood hazards, slope stability problems, suitability for septic tank leech fields, growth inducing factors, adequacy of public facilities (e.g. 4. Land Use and Pooulation Comparison in land use between the 1963 General Plan and the proposed plan for existing East County communities are shown in the following table. 48- TABLE 10 COMPARISON OF ACREAGES OF GENERAL PLANS 1963 General Plan Proposed East County Plan . . Land Use Approx. Land Use Approx. Area Category Acreage Category Acreage Bethel Island Single Family-High 2,309 Single Family 1,704 Retail Business 59 Retail Business 75 Extensive Ag. 2.356 Ag.-Residential 2,078 TOTALS 4,724 3,857 Byron Single Family-Medium 790 Single Family 106 Single Family-High 215 Multiple Family 11 Retail Business 43 Retail Business 4 Light Industry 7 Commercial 5 Public/Semi-Public 7 TOTALS 1,048 140.45 Discovery Bay* Single Family-High 1,484 _ Multiple Family-Low 56 Highway. Commercial 9 Neighborhood Business 11 Bus. & Professional 22 Public/Semi-Public 18 Open Space 20 Neighborhood Park 14 1,670 Knightsen Single Family-Medium 106 Single Family 19 Retail Business 35 Retail Business 1 Light Industry, 21 Public/Semi-Public 7 TOTALS 141 48 Oakley/Sand..Hill Brentwood Single Family-High 2,840 Single Family 4,945 Single Family-Med. 998 Multiple Family 24 Retail Business 179 Retail Business 227 Controlled Mfg. 141 Light Industry 19 Public/Semi-Public 73 Rural Density-** 428 Urban Density** 837 TOTALS 4,158 6,554 *Discovery Bay Plan was adopted **Rural & urban densities are City of Brentwood categories. 000040 49 Thus the proposed Area Plan expands the public commitment to development in the vicinity of the existing East County communities by approximately 2,200 acres-including Discovery Bay. This is a 226 increase in acreage in the urban growth areas. Presumably the population holding capacity of the existing communities is increased proportionately. (The population holding capacity of the planned and . Recreation communities is difficult to estimate because of the density of development tied to a service availability criteria.) The location of the lands shown for urban development on the proposed plan is a considerable shift from the 1963, plan. The new plan shows much larger growth for the Oakley Sandhill area and Discovery Bay and reduced area for growth in Byron. The minimum allowable parcel size in the Agriculture Core and Agriculture Recreationa areas is increased to 10 and 20 acres respectively. The intent of the new,plan is to direct population growth to the expanded Planned and Recreation communities with a significant increase in the population holding capacity of the East County area. 5. Schools The Brentwood Elementary School District schools and the Liberty Union High School are presently operating of their design capacity. During the next 4 or 5 years the anticipated growth in enrollments can be accommodated through the use of portables. However, continued population growth in the East County could trigger a school facility problem. How voters will respond to requests for tax rate increases to finance new or expanded school facilities is open to question. 6. Sewage Disposal and Water Facilities The creation of many residential lots served by septic tanks and wells may pose a threat to the public health. Depending on site conditions, it can be extremely difficult on a lot-split by lot-split basis to properly locate these facilities so that they do not interfere with one another, even on a 5 acre parcel. Groundwater contamination could result from such practices. Additionally, failure of a septic system could result in contamination of surface water. The East/Central Contra Costa County Wastewater Management Program is a comprehensive review of wastewater service for the eastern one-third of the county, including the Planning Area. The program entails improvement to sewage plants within the area to adequately treat municipal waste, to protect the quality of the receiving waters (Sacramento-San Joaquin rivers), to consolidate the sub-regional facilities, and to expand population service. 50 s • Even though these proposed improvements would substantially increase the existing systems ability to improve quality of treatment and to serve new growth, the design capacity of the new system would not, in general, serve the population that could be provided for by the land use patterns proposed in the Planned Community areas. In the Oakley-Sand Hill area, for example, the capacity of the system as proposed can be fully utilized by development located_north of the Contra Costa Canal and east of Empire Road. Therefore, it appears warranted to consider phased development in a contiguous manner to assure that the system capacity is not overextended through 1990. 7. Circulation and Traffic The proposed Circulation Element of the Area Plan calls for the straightening of Highway 4 in the Oakley area and for road widening and improvement as development occurs. Further, since Highway 4 creates both a noise and traffic problem where it traverses the communities of Brentwood and Oakley, it is recommended that alternative routes in or around these communities be studied. The recommendations are not tied to a time table or prioritized. Specific impacts are discussed below. 1. The East County Area Plan states (p. 55) that the County is to obtain road widenings and appropriate road improvements as land is developed. However, the Circulation Element of the Area Plan does not establish the details of road widths, right-of-way widths, etc. The-Major Road Plan should be revised in the tight of the East County Area Plan and submitted to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for approval. 2. The proposed plan recommends (p. 55) that the County initiate a program of correcting road deficiencies on existing roads. The feasibility of such a program is not considered; the plan does not establish who is responsible for the program; East County roads requiring improvements are not specifically identified or priori- tized; the proposed plan does not establish criteria or guidelines for the program. 3. The East County Area Plan recommends that an alternative route for Highway 4 through Brentwood be studied, but it does not establish guidelines or criteria for the study. In the meantime, noise, truck traffic, peak hour traffic, and congestion can be expected to increase as the population increases. S. Geology There is a wide range of hazards and risks to life and property in the Delta lowlands. These hazards vary with the different geologic, seismic and foundation conditions, the proposed use of the area, 51 ocupancy factors, and the type of structures which are established on the site. Special problems of the Delta lowlands can be divided into two major categories: static problems and earthquake problems. These are summarized below. Static Problems Earthquake Problems a. Subsidence a. Surface faulting b. Differential settlement b. Slope instability c. Slope instability C. Ground shaking d. Flooding d. Ground failure (including lurching, liquefaction, cracking, etc.) e. Erosion e. Levee instability (seismic loading) 9. Seismicity It should be recognized that due to subsidence of the levee protected islands and the continued urbanization of Bethel Island, seismic risks are now at their highest levels in historic time. •With respect to the potential for a damaging earthquake, the question is when, not if one will occur; and the greater the elapsed time since the last significant seismic event, the greater the likelihood of its occurrence in the future. The data of the California Division of Mines and Geology indicates that 6 to 10 severe earthquakes have impacted this area in the last 160 years. Thus,*on the average, we should anticipate severe ground shaking in the Delta at least once every 27 years, if earthquakes were perfectly periodic in their occurrence. Another way to express this is that every year, .the potential for a severe ground shaking in the Delta (Modified Mercalli Intensities VII-VIII) is approximately 4 percent. It should be obvious that the seismic risks in the Delta are on the same order of magnitude as risks from flooding and ought to be accorded similar weight by decision-making bodies. 10. . Stream Hydrology Associated with the anticipated growth in the Planning Area will be an increase in impermeable surfaces. It is reasonable to conclude that the amount and speed of runoff will increase proportionately-The cumulative affect of such growth in the Marsh Creek and Kellogg Creek watersheds will be channel bank erosion and sedimentation. Additionally, development in the higher portions of the drainage basins will tend to increase the frequency of flooding in the downstream areas. The addition of street litter, road oils, detergents, insecticides, fertilizers and other chemicals to the runoff water will have an adverse effect on water quality. Additionally, the water table may be affected. Taken together these changes will have a negative impact on the riparian habitat along creeks in the Planning Area. 52 1I. Delta Flood Hazard Existing information indicates that the Delta lowlands are within the 100 year floodplain. Under the Disaster Protection act of 1973, participation in the Flood Insurance program requires that flooding be recognized by the County in its permit system, through the implementation of subdivision codes and regulations, building codes, zoning constraints, etc. Existing County standards which pertain to development in the Delta lowlands specify that the tops of curbs shall be no lower than elevation 9.5 feet (U. S. G. S. 1929 mean sea level datum) in the area east of Simmons Point. If the Section 8467 (e) (4) of the County Ordinance Code were to be enforced, pad elevations for residential and commercial buildings would have to exceed, an elevation of 9.5 feet above sea level throughout the Delta islands and Delta lowlands. - The appropriateness of designating flood prone areas for suburban development, (e.g. Bethel Island Recreation Community), warrants careful consideration by decision making bodies. Certainly commer- cial and residential uses which are approved should be designed to minimize the potential for loss of life, injuries and property damage. Levee failure has occurred in the past and it is reasonable to anticipate that it will occur in the future. It should also be recognized that the Delta lies in a seismically active area, and the ` ability of levee in East County to survive strong ground shaking is unproven. 12. Overuse of Delta Waterways Perhaps the greatest long-range threat to water quality in the Delta is concentrated recreational and suburban use of the Delta lowlands and Delta tracts. Certainly, concern about overuse and_environmen- tal damage will grow as the number of persons and boats increase. Vandalism, trespassing, degredation of levees by boat produced waves, boating accidents, and pedestrian and vehicle traffic on levee crests, are some of the problems associated with an intense, water-oriented use of the Delta. Solid waste disposal often poses difficulties in recreation areas. Refuse and garbage always seem to create disposal problems. Waste containers.are few_and far between and emptied infrequently. Invariably, waste finds its way into the waterways, onto adjacent banks and, in the case of paper, onto distant lands. There is a potential for reduced water quality because of spillage of fuels, which often occurs during refueling of motor boats. Increased quantities of sewage effluent will be generated. Runoff from marinas 53 000040 and recreation communities include oil residue, solvents, detergents, and silt-laden rainwater. All of these can be expected to impact the water quality in the area. 13. Water Quality The quality of well water in the East County is not good (i.e. approaches or exceeds U. S. P. H. S. standards for T. D. S., iron, manganese and boron) and it may decline further over the long term due to the greater salinity in the tidal waters of the sloughs, proliferation of septic tanks for sewage disposal and other factors. With regard to the Delta, water quality is subject to seasonal fluctuations. Winter floods carry heavy sediment loads, increased nitrate fertilizer residue, pesticides and other synthetic chemicals which are generated with the runoff from agriculture lands. Irriga- tion return water, recreational wastes by boats, and people, and chloride concentration increased by salinity,.encroachment from the Bay may be the main pollutants during summers. Water projects which reduce flows through .the Delta, such as the Peripheral Canal, will produce a salinity encroachment into the Delta waterways. The effect on Contra Costa County Water District (CCCWD) water quality will be negative, objectionable to the consumer and conceivably threaten the water supply. The effect on irrigation water is also adverse. 14. Vegetation and Wildlife The East County area possesses two areas that warrant special consideration: a. The Delta waterways and associated marshlands and riparian vegetation, including Frank's Tract, Old River Islands, and Cliffton Court Forebay. b. The Open grassland - Blue Oak woodland vegetative complex in the western and southwestern portion of the Planning Area. The aquatic, marsh and riparian habitats of the Delta region are. under increased pressure as nearby communities (i.e. Bethel Island, Discovery Bay) grow in size and water-related recreation becomes more popular. Flood Control improvements have removed much of the marshlands and riparian vegetation, and the rich benthic (bottom) communities of the sloughs are periodically dredged. Several unique plant and animal species occur in this region (see Table 8) and may b further endangered by the increased presence of and interference by man. Unless protective measures are taken the wildlife value and vegetative diversity of the Delta will continue to decline. 54 The open grassland and blue oakwood habitats are not under as much destructive pressure as in the Delta region. There-is currently little development in the western and southwestern portions of the Planning Area. The 1963 General Plan designated this area "extensive agriculture". The proposed East County Area Plan designates it "Agriculture Residential" and calls for a minimum parcel size of 5 acres. If this remote area is permitted to fragment into scattered residential 'outposts", the wildlife value of this portion of the county will be severely diminished. Many of the wildlife species that occur in these habitats require large and relatively undisturbed territories to maintain their populations. Examples include raptorial birds (e.g. red-tailed hawk, golden eagle), gray fox, coyotes, badgers and the rare and endangered San Joaquin kit fox. 15. Economics The continued population growth in the East County will require a variety of community services and natural resources. The added burden on the Sheriff's Department, the fire districts, educational servies, County administration, maintenance services of storm sewers, street lighting, street cleaning, provision of water, flood control protection, sewage treatment, maintenance of roads, etc. represent a cost to the community. Whether the cost would be covered by the revenue produced by the residents through sales and property tax cannot be determined without an extensive economic analysis. The plan provides for a considerable increase in the area designated for residential use, enough to accommodate a fourfold increase in the current population. Several factors suggest that the local job base will not increase enough to support this large increase in population. There are likely to be future constraints on energy and water resources for industry in the area. The study area does not have the secondary services necessary for manufacturing to locate here. New industry expected to establish in the Antioch-Pittsburg area is not labor intensive and the new jobs could be expected to be largely filled by the unemployed labor force in the Antioch-Pittsburg area. Therefore, the employment need of the study area will have to be met by the job market in Stockton, west and central county, Solano County and San Francisco. The plan then is essentially a suburban based one where residents will have to commute long distances to work. This has several implications. Increased traffic will deteriorate air quality which could threaten agricultural productivity. Residents will have to assume a considerable tax burden to support community services. Urban sprawl is encouraged. The rural character of the East County area as an agricultural service center will be irrevocably changed. 16. Housing If the proposed East County Plan is successful in channeling most housing growth into the -planned and recreation communities, the 55 • result will be well defined residential communities surrounded by agricultural land. The plan allots 8853 acres for residential use, which represents a four-fold increase above the current number of acres in actual residential use. This exceeds the land needed to accommodate anticipated residential growth in the East County during the planning period Within the Planned Communities, fully 99% of the land allocated to ,residential uses is designated as single family residential. However, density levels are not specified for this use category. The only limits- on density specified by the plan are related to the availability of sewer and water services: Since the future availability of these services is difficult to anticipate, tying of growth to *these factors makes the future pattern and density of growth within the designated growth areas unpredictable and potentially discontiguous. The plan does not specifically address the area's housing problems such as rental overpayment and deteriorated housing, or the housing needs of tow income residents. The Area Plan text does not address the question of mobile homes, and no lands are specifically designated for mobile homes on the General Plan land use maps, though it is assumed that mobile homes will be permitted in some residential areas. Mobile homes presently provide a source of low cost housing for East County residents, and they will continue to do so in the future. The East County Area General Plan land use maps designate 82 acres for multiple family residential use. This amounts to less than 1% of the area allocated to residential uses in the proposed plan. Presently 36 acres, or 1.6% of the existing residential land use in East County is used for multiples. Thus, the proposed. Area Plan appears to provide for a percentage reduction in land for multiple dwellings. 16 Air Quality The East County lies in a "critical air basin" as defined by the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District. As the East County is transformed from a rural to an increasingly, suburban, highway- oriented community, there will be a proportionate increase in automobile emissions. These emissions are only a fraction of the total Bay Area emissions. However, the effects of air pollution are cumulative; when added to other emissions, it will make it more difficult to achieve state and federal air quality standards. Added to this are the climatic condtions which produce occasional temperature inversions and associated "smog", and the west winds which convey automobile and industrial pollutants into the East County area. The picture that emerges is not very favorable for the community's air quality 18. Noise Noise, especially noise generated by transportation sources, is ever present in urban and suburban life. Acoustical engineers anticipate 56 • that noise levels generated by vehicles will actually decrease in the future with advances in technology and as higher standards are imposed on the industry. Consequently the County Noise Element projects that 1990 noise levels along Highway 4, Byron Highway and Lone Tree Way will be comparable to or slightly lower than present noise levels. Nevertheless, it is probable that residential lots along major arterials and Highway 4 will be impacted by annoying and potentially hazardous outdoor noise levels. Additionally, noise and truck traffic are a source of annoyance to some residents of Brentwood. This problem is not resolved by the proposed General Plan. In addition, if the General Plan is adopted with the proposed population capacities, the noise contours in the Noise Element for the Oakley area will have to be revised since they are based on existing population. 19. Archaeology Although numerous archaeolgoic sites have been identified in.the East County, no comprehensive survey has been conducted. As develop- ment occurs in the Planning Area, site preparation work poses a strong potential to disturb or destroy buried archaeologic resources. 20. Energy Impacts In the past, mere economic incentive has been sufficient to guarantee an energy supply for a growing community. Energy supplies are limited at the present time, and this restriction may continue indefinitely. It is valuable to examine the impact of a proposed project (in this instance an Area Plan) from the point of view of energy supply and demand. The proposed General Plan designates nearly 9,500 acres as Planned and Recreation Communities and 1950 acres as industry. This is a definite increase in the amount of acreage devoted to residential and industrial uses over the 1963 Contra Costa County General Plan. The proposed plan will indirectly result in a substantial increase in energy consumption in East County. Energy will be consumed in construction of streets, roads and buildings and in operation and maintenance of buildings. Increased public services will also consume additional energy. ,Moreover, the relative isolation of East County from major shopping facilities and diversified employment opportu- nities implies relatively high gasoline consumption. Increased consumption of electrical energy is important since over 3 BTU's of energy input are required per BTU of delivered electrical energy. The use of electricity for air conditioning- is of special concern as air conditioning loads in East County are high due to warm 57 000040 summer temperatures. Air conditioning requirements can be substan- tially reduced through proper building and site design. There are significant differences in heating and cooling energy requirements for housing units of different types. As housing unit density increases, energy use per family decreases (as shown in the chart below). NATIONWIDE BTU's of required per degree. Housing Type day of heating load Single family 25,000 Duplex or townhouse 16,000 Multi-family 12,000 Multiple family units require less energy than single family homes because the amount of energy required for space conditioning is decreased. There are typically fewer exposed sides and a greater number of common walls in a multi-family dwelling, so instead of 'losing conditioned air to the outdoors, air is exchanged between units, reducing net energy loss. The area within the proposed plan designated for multiple family uses is small, therefore, the impact upon energy consumption is relatively adverse. At the present time, the communities of Oakley, Sandhill, Byron, Discovery Bay and Brentwood are served by natural gas. However, the future of natural gas supply in the area as elsewhere in the state is tenuous. New development within these communities will be able to connect to natural gas for the short term future but the distance which future lines may extend is restricted. Presently, no commer- cial uses may connect to natural gas without applying.through the Public Utilities Commission. It is possible that within the life of the plan, residences will be converting to alternate energy sources and that natural gas will not be available in the study area. The impact of this on industry planning in the area would be significant. Heavy industry will have to use coal or crude oil. This could significantly impact air quality in the Delta area. H. Environmental Impact Analysis B. Any Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided If This Proposal Is Implemented 1. A primary impact of the expansion of recreational communities and water-oriented recreation is the generation of increased use of the Delta waterways. Realizing that this is, in part, the purpose of waterway recreation, there is a price to pay for increases in water use by more and more persons. The distinction between increased use 58 and overuse9a complex problem which must ultimately be addressed if the present high recreational value of the Delta is to be maintained. 2. The proposed Area Plan expands the population holding capacity of the East County. Associated with the increased growth potential are a myriad of impacts, including traffic and associated noise and air quality impacts; consumption of renewable and nonrenewable resour- ces; construction related problems, including noise, traffic and dust; increased demand for community facilities, including added school loads and cost; added demand for medical, fire andpolice services; loss of some agricultural land and visual open space; loss of wildlife habitat. It should be pointed out, however, if the plan is successful in directing future growth toward the Planned and Recreation Commu- nities, the proposed plan can be considered superior to the suspended 1963 General Plan. C. Mitigating Measures Proposed to Minimize the Impact 1. Planned Communitv The plan fails to discuss the problem of scattered, unplanned development within the Oakley/Brentwood planned community. Since the holding capacity is far above the actual anticipated population, efforts should be made to direct growth to avoid interfering with existing agricultural activities. Criteria for subdivisions of land within the planned community should be developed. Densities should be assigned to residential areas, and time phasing should be implemented in the Oakley area. The area north of Contra Costa Canal can easily accommodate the anticipated growth of the Oakley- Sandhill area (not including the Brentwood area) for the life of the plan. Development south of the canal (within the Oakley-Sandhill area) should be restricted. This would encourage compact and contiguous growth and encourage retention of some of the viable agricultural units which are located within the planned community area. 2. Recreation Community The Bethel Island Recreation Community lies in an area which is subject to flooding, underlain by materials which possess a low bearing strength, possess a high water table, and are very hazardous seismically. The proposed East County Plan quite correctly recom- mends that urban development must connect to community sewer and water facilities, and that detailed geologic and engineering reports are to be required as a prerequisite for considering the approval of public and private projects. However, the area plan actually expands the public commitment to development on Bethel Island beyond the limits shown on the 1963 General Plan. Additionally, no special consideration is given to flood plain management. The Area Plan should discourage suburban uses and densities._unlesss 'structures are elevated above the +9.5 foot elevation (mean sea level datum). Special consideration should be given to the maintenance of the Bethel Island levee. 59 3. Agriculture Core The primary objective of the East County Area Plan is the preservation of commercial agriculture. The major policy recommen- dation in this regard is the establishment-of a 14,583 acre Agriculture Core (approximately 12.5 percent of the Planning Area). The plan calls for a minimum parcel size of 10 acres in the Agriculture Core. A 10 acre parcel is marginally suited for use as commercial agricultural land. According to the report on the Preservation of Prime Agricultural Lands in Eastern Contra Costa County prepared by the Land Conservation Committee (January 1972, p. 46), "Where parcels are 10 acres or less, it is more expensive to farm the land because of the higher cost of moving the farm equipment from parcel . to parcel and the limitations of the manner in which insecticides and fertilizer may be distributed. In the case of row crops where mechanical harvesting is generally carried out, a small parcel cannot support the cost of using the machinery." It should be recognized that under ideal conditions (i.e. relatively flat site, possessing good drainage, adequate water supply, favorable nutrient characteristics of soils, mechanical harvesting equipment available at an affordable rate, etc.) some commercial agriculture is viable on a 10 acre parcel. However, allowing all agricultural lands in the Agriculture Core to subdivide into 10 acres may threaten the viability of certain crops (e.g. orchards) Additionally, it is reasonable to assume that ranchettes may replace commercial agriculture on some parcels, further threatening the remaining farms. It should also be noted that in recent years there has been a trend to convert orchards into row crops. Row crops require approximately 6 times as much irrigation water as orchards. In some parts of the East County an adequate water supply is presently not available to convert orchards into row crops. Moreover, the high boron content of ground water makes it unsuitable for irrigation of crops. In summary, consideration should be given to requiring EIR's for any subdivision applications which may create an uneconomical parcel size thereby threatening the survival of agriculture. It is also recommended that a study be made to determine where (and under what conditions) a 10 acre parcel is a viable farm unit in the East County Planning Area. Agricultural preserves should be encouraged. Depending on the appropriateness of the particular proposal, the county should support legislation which would tax commercial agricultural land on the basis of agricultural productivity and not on the basis of development potential. 4. Agriculture Residential The area designated Agriculture Residential includes some agricul- tural lands underlain by prime soils, remote open grassland areas which serve as a significant wildlife habitat, and areas underlain by economic mineral deposits. Some of the land in the Agriculture 60 • • Residential category is poorly suited to development because of natural hazards (potentially hazardous geologic and soils conditions, flood hazard, wildfire hazard) and/or because of inadequate utilities and community facilities (lack of dependable water supply, inade- quate roads and fire protection, questionable suitability for septic tank leech fields, etc.) To discourage premature, unplanned or inefficient development of such areas, the General Plan should provide criteria for evaluating the appropriateness of subdivision applications within the Agriculture Residential category. Strong consideration should be given to requiring Environmental Impact Reports for all major projects and for any subdivision which is considered an intrusion into a commercial agricultural area or a significant wildlife area. 5. Agriculture Recreation Seismic safety considerations, along with the potential for flooding and drainage problems indicate that the Agriculture-Recreation area should not be developed or accorded a low development priority. Suburban uses and densities should be discouraged. Some areas subject to flooding with poor drainage characteristics are not sufficiently protected. These include the area under the 10 foot elevation contour noted for agriculture-residential use. A larger parcel size would be more appropriate here to discourage- urban development and minimize the impact of flooding. The boundary of the Agriculture-Recreation area should be extended to the 10 foot contour line. The Plan does not establish definitive criteria for the placement of recreation uses within the areas designated as Agriculture-Recrea- tion. Some areas which are included in this land use category such as, but not limited to, Quimby Island, Bradford Island and Webb Tract are areas with poor access and should not receive extensive non- agricultural development. Heavy use of these islands requiring access by limited capacity ferry or private boat could adversely impact those areas. Criteria should be developed for the placement of recreation uses within the Agricultural-Recreation category which considers such issues as access, location of similar uses, impacts to levee system, adjacent agriculture lands, inadequate roads, and ferry system, and the Delta's natural areas. Approval of such uses should be closely regulated by the land use permit process or other appropriate zoning procedures. 6. Recreation The plan encourages recreational development but does not discuss policies on the location of commercial recreation, notably marinas and resorts adjacent to Delta waterways. Criteria should be established for the location and development of commercial recrea- tion. As the draft Delta Action Plan recommends, water oriented recreation projects (marinas, docksites) should be clustered and avoid 61 • • areas where unique wildlife habitats occur. This would include the Big Break area and all non-levied islands. All projects should be specifically designed to minimize impacts on aquatic, marsh and riparian habitats and avoid conflicts with agriculture and low intensive recreation uses. Any project which represents an intrusion into an open land area may require an environmental impact report. Due to the cumulative effect of marinas and recreational develop- ments on the Delta's ecosystem, even small projects will require careful environmental assessment. 7. Industr The East County Plan places primary importance on agricultural and recreational land use and secondary importance on the expansion of heavy industrial uses within the Planning Area. The proposed plan designates 1941 acres ( less than 2% of the Planning Area) for heavy industrial use. This is a narrow corridor north of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe railroad tracks, in the extreme northwest portion of the Planning Area. Because of its geographic location, the area can be considered a logical extension of the Pittsburg-Antioch industrial complex. However, the aquatic and marshlands habitat of the Big Break area is a natural wildlife resource recognized by both the East Bay Regional Parks District and the draft Delta Action Plan. The area outlined for industrial use should be reduced to exclude the water areas and marshlands so as to preserve the wildlife habitat and recreational value of Big Break. The plan should contain a policy statement specifying that industrial uses must be carefully controlled to ensure adequate protection of the Big Break ecosystem. D. Alternatives to the Proposed Action 1. No Project. This alternative assumes that no new General Plan for the East County area would be adopted and that the East County would continue as a Reserve Area governed by the stipulations set forth in the Open Space and Conservation Element, p. 26. Applica- tions for development would be interpreted on a case by case basis and the area would continue to have no comprehensive plan for growth and land use. This alternative may have some advantages in reducing undesirable impacts of the proposed ' plan. It has the disadvantage of not specifically guiding growth or taking specific measures to preserve commercial agriculture. 2. Conformance with Countywide General Plan Categories This alternative assumes that the East County General Plan could utilize the use categories found in area plans developed for other unincorporated communities in the county. The proposed General Pian introduces 5 new land use categories, three of which refer to agricultural uses. Utilizing existing land use categories would simplify the plan and thereby promote more consistent application of General Plan requirements. In addition, utilizing existing General 62 Plan categories would enhance consistency in language between county plans and state planning law. 3. Increase Minimum Parcel Size in Agricultural Land Use Cate-Tories Parcel size is thought to have a substantial effect on much of agricultural viability; the smaller the acreage involved, the harder it is to compete against large scale operators. In 1971, the County's Land Conservation Committee prepared a report entitled The Preservation of Prime Agricultural Lands in Eastern Contra Costa County. On page 36 of that report, it states, "It is significant that in the East Contra Costa irrigation District, out of 1,378 parcels of land, 887 are in parcel sizes of less than 10 acres...Those parcels of 80 acres or larger total only 126 and represent 36 percent of the total acreage involved." Increasing the minimum parcel size in each of the three land use categories would encourage the preservation of commercial agriculture in the East County. For example, increasing the minimum parcel size in the agriculture residential category could discourage development of ranchette lifestyle. To be successful, as a protective measure, some effective means would have to be found to ensure that agricultural lands are taxed on the basis of their agricultural productivity and not on their potential for urban development. 4. Phase Development in the Oakley Brentwood Planned Communities This alternative assumes there would be some kind of time phasing of development at specified densities. Within the Oakley-Sandhill and Brentwood communities, the proposed plan could accommodate more than 3 times the existing population. This far exceeds the anticipated 1990 population for this area. If the Plan provided criteria for phasing development, it could have the effect of directing compact growth, infilling of existing neighborhoods and phasing development more consistently with water and sewer capacities. Under this alternative, the boundary• of a Planned Community might not be altered but certain portions of the Planned Community would not be "slated" for development in the near future. Rather, they would assume an interim agricultural status. 5. Place Foothill Areas in Large Parcel Major Open Space Classification This alternative would change much of the area west and south of the Agriculture Core from Agriculture Residential at 5 acre minimum to open space at a larger parcel size. This would more accurately reflect existing use of the area as rangeland and the existing large parcel sizes (100 acres plus). Due to lack of roads, steep slopes and distance from urban services, the area is not suited for small parcel sizes and residential uses, implied by the term Agriculture Residen- tial. 63 6. Revise Proposed General Plan Land Use Map Revise the land use map to include all prime soils (and perhaps other currently productive Class III or IV soils) in the Agriculture Core and all flood prone lands to the 10 foot contour line in Agriculture Recreation. This would tend to maximize preservation of existing agricultural activities which lie within the proposed Agriculture Residential category and place most of the area of the 100 year flood plain in larger parcel size. 7. Balance Residential Use with Anticioated Employment Opportunities Under this alternative, the acreage within planned communities designated for residential uses would be in scale with the local employment base and therefore reduced considerably from the proposed plan. The proposed area outlined for residential use can accommodate many more persons than the anticipated employment base can support. This has the effect-of condoning a commuter-based community and encouraging sprawl. This alternative would reduce traffic, noise, demands for services and adverse impacts on air quality and energy resources by providing for less 'growth (reducing areas outlined for residential use). 8. Energy Alternatives Long commutes are not energy efficient, and the single family home is the least energy efficient housing type. The plan could encourage the eventual establishment of a comprehensive public transit system through its land use and circulation planning. The plan could also stress the importance of incorporating energy-mitigation measures in project design and construction practices. For-example, the plan could encourage multiple family developments in the East County Planning Area (see the Contra Costa County Energy Study for detailed consideration of energy conservation measures). E. The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's-Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity The East County Area is dominated by agricultural and recreational land uses. However, during the past 15 or 20 years there has been a growing problem of -the loss of prime agricultural land to large lot residential development. Unless effective measures are taken to protect agricultural lands from development pressure, it is predictable that haphazard land development patterns will eventually replace commercial agricultural. The importance of good soil in continuing to produce food cannot be underestimated in this period of food shortages, world famine, and expanding population. There is a question regarding the appropriateness of converting productive agricultural lands into 5-acre ranchettes. In regard to recreation and the preservation of wildlife habitat, there is a basic question which has not been resolved: when does increased recreational use of Delta waterways constitute overuse? The problem is one of balancing short-term development pressures against the importance of preserving the high recreational value of the Delta. Ultimately, the 64 0 • problem is one of attempting to include knowledge of cumulative, long- term impacts into the short-term decision-making process. For example, there are no studies or policies which limit the number of marinas in the Delta of Contra Costa County. Each application which is approved results in increased boat traffic and use of Delta waterways. There may be a recognition that the environment is being adversely affected, but this is rarely a basis for denying an application. F. Any Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would Be Involved If the Proposed Action Should Be Approved Approval of the proposed East County Area Plan will allow irreversible environmental changes to occur. The same is true of the 1963 General Plan, but to a greater degree. There are three reasons why the proposed plan will have fewer impact: (1) Under the suspended plan haphazard development was occurring in the East County. The proposed plan identifies an Agriculture Core and recommends an increase in the minimum parcel size from 5 acres to 10 acres. (2) The proposed plan identifies ample areas for urbanization within designated Planned Commu- nities, and relates residential densities to availability of sewer and water facilities. (3) The proposed plan identifies an Agriculture Recreational Area (the Delta lowlands) and calls for a 20 acre minimum parcel size. There are unresolved public safety risks in this area, and the large parcel size will discourage intensive residential uses. G. Growth-Inducing Impact of the Proposed Action The proposed plan is clearly a growth inducing action. It allows for 2,200 additional acres (including Discovery Bay) for urban uses over the 1964 County General Plan. The holding capacity of the proposed plan exceeds 68,000, 4.5 times the 1975 population of the study area and nearly 3 times the anticipated population for the life of the Plan. Because the plan does not propose population densities or time phasing of development in the planned communities, it leaves the scope and density of development strictly up to service availability. This has the effect of giving utility boards the decisions as to future location of growth and not the policies of the General Plan. Consequently, growth could occur in a haphazard fashion and in areas which would not be consistent with the goals of the plan, i.e. preservation of agriculture and low density development in flood hazard areas. As detailed in the Economic Impact Section, the plan provides for a large amount of residential growth without the likelihood of a proportionate increase in the local job base. H. Organizations and Persons Consulted; Documents Utilized During the preparation of Environmental Impact Reports, written and oral communications take place between the Planning Department and other County departments. The General Plan and its various element are also 0000,10 65 scrutinzed regarding the proposed action. If additional consultations, contacts of consequence and documents were used, they are referenced below. East County Area General Plan, A draft proposal, April, 1976, Contra Costa County Planning Department Population Characteristics Inventory and Analyses, East County Planning Area, October, 1973, Contra Costa County Planning Department. Transportation Facilities Inventory and Analyses, East County Planning Area, January, 1974, CCCPD. Economic Characteristics Inventory and Analyses, East County Planning Area, March, 1974, CCCPD. Physical Resources Inventory and Analyses, East County Planning Area, December, 1973, CCCPD. Community Facilities Inventory and Analyses, East County Planning Area, November, 1973, CCCPD. Land Use and Zoning Inventory and Analyses, East County Planning Area June, 1974, CCCPD. Contra Costa County Soil Survey, 1974, Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. Preservation of Prime Agricultural Land in Eastern Contra Costa County, January, 1972, Land Conservation Committee Report. Contaminants and Weather Summary, Monthly and Yearly Reports, Bay Area Air Pollution Control District Seismic Safety Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan, 1975. . Noise Element, Contra Costa County General Plan, May, 1975. Contra Costa County Energy Resources and Conservation Study, 1976, in „ preparation. Contra Costa County General Plan, Open Space Conservation Element, August, 1973. Delta Action Plan, Delta Advisory Planning Council, 1976. I. Qualification of EIR Preparation Agency This Environmental Impact Report was prepared by the .Contra Costa County Planning Department. The majority of the reports are prepared by the Environmental Impact personnel of the current Planning Division and 66 the County Planning Geologist where applicable. Other Planning Department and other County personnel were-, utilized. as, necessary. Ordinarily the person directly coordinating and writing the report is listed as the contact person on the notice of completion, or Arnold B. Jonas, Senior Planner, can be contacted. EIR Team Alice Bonner 3. S. Wildlife and Fisheries Biology K Bruce N. Bowman, B. S. Urban Planning Arnold B. Jonas, A. B. Economics Stan Y. Matsumoto, B. S.Civil Engineering Darwin Myers, B. S. Math., B. S. Geology, Ph. D. Geology Dale Sanders, B. S. Biology, Ph. D. Entomology r r. DM:blh 67 APPENDIX I SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND COUNTY SERVICE AREAS, EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (January 1, 1976) Non-School Special Districts and County Service Areas Governed by Board of Supervisors, East Contra Costa County *Letter designator in county services H-S -Health and Safety Code . area name indicates type of extended Wa - Water Code service(s) rendered. Gov - Government Code P-R - Public Resources Code P-U -Public Utility Code County Sanitation: (4,700, H-S) Created No. 15 (Bethel Island Area) 5-16-67 No. 19 (Byron Area) 12-26-67 County Service Area (25,210, Gov.) *D-Drainage D-12 (Sandmound Area) 10-26-71 D-14 (W. Oakley Area) 10-26-71 *L-Street Lighting L-43 (East County Area) 6-16-64 *LIB-Library Construction LIB-11 (Oakley Area) 12-27-66 *M-Miscellaneous (Two or more services) M-1 (Delta Area) 1-05-60 M-8 (Byron Area) 10-01-68 M-13 (Bethel Island Area) 12-09-69 *RD-Road Maintenance RD-3 (Bethel Island Area) 11-09-71 RD-4 (Dutch Slough Area) 10-16-73 *S-Sewer S-1 (Sandmound Area) 9-28-65 S-2 (Oakley Area) 12-27-66 Fire Protection: (13,801, H-S) Bethel Island 4-22-46 68 APPENDIX I, cont*d. • Fire Protection (cont'd) Created Brentwood _ 7-21-30 Byron 10-21'-29. Eastern 7-01-68 Oakley 8-06-28 Flood Control: (Stat. 1951 App. 63-1 Wa) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation 9-24-51: .- Zone -24-51: -Zone 1 (Marsh Creek) 8-26-52: Zone 2 (Kellogg Creek) 12-02-52 Storm Drainage: (Stat. 1953, App. 69-1 Wa) Contra Costa County Zone 29-A (Oakley Area) 12=26=72 Zone 108-A (Marsh Creek Area) 8-31=71'. ` Water Agency: (Stat. 1957, App, 80-1 Wa) Contra Costa County 9=11-57 Non-School Special Districts Governed by Independent Boards County Water: (30,200 Wa) ~c Contra Costa 5-08-36 Oakley 5-18-53 Irrigation: (20,500, Wa) Byron-Bethany (Extends into Alameda 12-22-19 and San Joaquin Counties) ;� w East Contra Costa 9-03-26 69 000000 APPENDIX II Non-School Districts Governed by Independent Boards Mosquito Abatement: (2,200, H-S) Contra Costa No. 1 1-20-53 Diablo Valley 11-13-51 =- Municipal Improvement: (Stat. 1960, Ch. 22) Bethel Island 7-05-60 Public Cemetery: (8,890, H-S) J. = Byron, Brentwood, Knightsen Union 6-25-28 Reclamation: (50,000, Wa) No. 799 (Sandmound) 7-06-09 v: No. 800 (Byron) 7-06-09 No. 802 (Clifton) 10-11-09 No. 830 (Jersey Island) 4-10-11 No..2024 (Orwood) 4-15-18 No. 2025 (Holland) 4-15-18 No. 2026 (Webb) 4-15-f8 No. 2036 (Palms) 5-05-19 No. 2059 (Bradford) 11-21-21 No. 2065 (Veale) 4=02-23 No. 2090 (Quimby) 7-10-56 Recreation and Park: (5,780, P-R) Brentwood 5-06-46_: ~.._ Resource Conservation: (9,000, P-R) Contra Costa Sanitarv: (61400, H-S) Byron 4-12-48 Oakley 8-27-45 70 Vr APPENDIX III �� ~ School Districts Governed by Independent Boards ` a Community College: _ u Contra Costa .r High School: _ Liberty Elementary School: Brentwood Byron _ Knightsen Oakley Cities Within the County Brentwood (incorporated 1948) ' .. .. -.r Is .. ." 1b r 71 0000,io e a c r, ... .. w. v _ CONTIPCOSTA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTM,O NOTICE OF XX Completion of Environmental Impact Report C�Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance Lead Agency Other Responsible Agency Contra Costa County c/o Planning Department P.O. Box 951 Martinez, California 94553 Phone (415) 372-2024 Phone EIR Contact Person Darwin Myers Contact Person PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is the adoption of the East County Area General Plan, an amendment to the Contra Costa County General Plan. This General Plan study was ordered by the Board of Supervisors in 1973 as a result of hearing on the Open Space and Conservation Element. The previous plan was the 1963 County General Plan. Adoption of the proposed plan would alter land use designations and result in the creation of new zoning districts in the eastern portion of the county. The Planning Area for this plan is defined as being that portion of the county which is east of Bridgehead Road, Deer Valley Road and Vasco Road. The Planning Area is bounded to the north by Sacramento County, on the east by San Joaquin County and on the south by Alameda County. Thus the Planning Area includes the south shore of the San Joaquin River, east of the Antioch Bridge. It also includes the Delta islands, Delta waterways and Delta lowlands of Contra Costa County. The East County Planning Area extends westerly to include the lower, east-facing foothills of the Diablo Range and intervening portions of the San Joaquin Valley. It is determined from initial study by of the Planning Department that this project does not have a significant effect on the environment. Justification for negative declaration is attached. XXX The Environmental Impact Report is available for review at the below address: Contra Costa County Planning Department 4th Floor, North Wing, Administration Bldg. Pine & Escobar Streets Martinez, California II Dae Post M 9 I°�`1(D Final date for review/appeal 19�� By Planning Depar nt Representative A P4 1 /'74 103 4MC: 03 101 , TB: 36 69 East County Public Hearring Barbara Kent Susanne Greene Art Winslow Planning Department P. O. Box 689 Dept. of Water Resources East Bay Reg. Park District Bethel Island, CA 94513 3251 S Street 11500 Skyline Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816 Oakland, CA 94619 Rose Hawkins Henry Mercer Mr. and Mrs. Merrill J. Ezra 4080 Legion Court c/o Charles Mercer Route 1, Box 89 Lafayette, CA 94549 Delta Road Byron, CA 94514 Knightsen, CA 94548 E. Mokmmey Mrs. Eugene Galli Leo Rippie Route 1, Box 172 420 Marc Avenue Route 2, Box 241 Oakley, CA 94561 Stockton, CA 95207 Brentwood, CA 94513 Mrs. J. E. Riede Eugene Masuda Sylvia Toth 100 Beede Way 2720 14th Street 3922 Canon Ave. #8 Antioch, CA 94509 Sacramento, CA 95818 Oakland, CA 94602 Harry Reeves Ben Peterson John W. Ronayne Route 2, Box 174 F 761 Second Street 1450 Creekside, Suite 94 Oakley, CA 94561 Brentwood, CA 94513 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Jeanne Young Angie Bolta E. W. Hurst 129 Broderick Drive 200 Saratoga Avenue P. O. Box 217 Brentwood, CA 94513 Santa Clara, CA 95050 Oakley, CA 94561 Nick Papadakos Martha Luis Patrick Graves Box 96 3918 Pebble Drive 3118 San Juan Court Byron, CA 94514 Antioch, CA 94509 Antioch, CA 94509 Mr. Bill Ledo Mr. Len Groves Andrew McGall 9901 Dillwood Road Route 1, Box 75 Independent Newspaper Oakdale, CA 95361 Byron, CA 93514 P. O. Box 1198 Livermore, CA 945-V00011-0 Eugene & Eleanor Newman James L. Peters Forrest Realty Inc. 5537 Michigan Blvd. Route 2, Box 269 H 4918 Clayton Road Concord, CA 94521 Brentwood, CA 94513 Concord, CA 94521 404 Q,h4 G:'0 3 101 � • TB:.36 69 P. 2 EC Public Hearing Mailing John Yeager Isabel Kvalvik Greg Holmes Calif. Public Utilities Comm. P. O. Box 3015 1017 Rotherham Drive Environmental Impact Section Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Antioch, CA 94509 455 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco, CA 94102 Larry Lorenzetti George Redding Route 2, Box B 396 P. O. Box 876 Oakley, CA 94561 Concord, CA 94519 • Bud Weisenburg G. R. Duterte Richard Farrell Delta Coves 4017 Fordham Way 2000 Glen Cove Road 29 Sorrento Way Livermore, CA 94550 Vallejo, CA 94590 San Rafael, CA 94901 Roy N. Jensen Gordon Chong Kenneth C. Dwelley Ashwell-Burke & Co. 2790 Buena Vista Way Route 1, Box 126 542 W. Trimble Road Berekeley, CA 94708 Brentwood, CA 94513 San Jose, CA 95131 Joseph Cunningham H. John Bloomfield Richard Lewis City of Brentwood 1077 Griffith Lane P. O. Box 171 708 Third Street Brentwood, CA 94513 Byron, CA 94514 Brentwood, CA 94513 William R. Baldwin Ernest C. Burroughs Arthur E. Honegger P. O. Box 335 Route 2, Box 477 Route 1, Box 342 Byron, CA 94514 Oakley, CA 94561 Oakley, CA 94561 Edna M. Bettencourt Sheldon G. Moore Stanley Planchon Route 1, Box 116 Route 1, Box 9 Oakley Union School District Brentwood, CA 94513 Byron, CA 94514 Route 1, Box 175 Oakley, CA 94561 Gene B. Stonebarger Leonard G. Celoni Robert Dal Porto Route 1, Box 339 Oakley County Water District CC Resource Conserv. Dist. Oakley, CA 94561 P. O. Box 241 Route 2, Box 234 Oakley, CA 94561 Oakley, CA 94561 0000,110 X05 QSt'NG:'03 99 TB:-36 69 EC Mailing p. 3 Carl L. Hansen Lee Laird, Jr. Jack Hernandez Byron Chamber of Commerce East CC Irrigation Eastern Contra Costa Board P. O. Box 366 Route 1, Box 214 of Realtors Byron, CA 94514 Brentwood, CA 94513 Brentwood, CA 94513 Milford L. Beutler Lucy Delaney itonald Nunn Bethel Island Municipal League of Women Voters Route ,1, Box 200 Improvement District 616 Faria Street Brentwodd, CA 94513 P. O. Box 244 Antioch, CA 94509 Bethel Island, CA 94511 William Bunn Kenneth Lee Louis E. Mangini Byron Union School District Brentwood Chamber of Commerce Contra Costa Farm Bureau Route 1, Box 100 Route 2, Box 618 24 Mangini Drive Byron, CA 94514 Brentwood, CA 94513 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Leonard Gerry Tony Lopez Louis Souza Liberty Union High School Dist. Brentwood Union School Dist. Byron-Bethany Irrigation Dist. Two Balfour Road Route 2, Box 233 1438 State Highway 4 Brentwood, CA 94513 Brentwood, CA 94513 Brentwood, CA 94513 William Boyd ' Ramiro Sancen Charles C. Duffy, M. D. Bethel Island Chamber of Comm. P. O. Box 624 Delta Memorial Medical Bldg. 6065 Bethel Island Road Oakley.,_,CA 94561 3911 Lone Tree Way. Bethel Island, CA 94511 Antioch, CA 94509 Paul Lamborn Robert D. Gromm Ben Reed P. O. Box 351 354-3rd Street Antioch Ledger Pittsburg, CA 94565 Brentwood, CA 94513 1700 Cavallo Road Antioch, CA 94509 William Snow Brentwood City Plan. Comm. 1345 North First Brentwood, CA 94513 Joanne Dean Bob Lasley Henry Cartan III, Sect'y. Route 1, Box 46 Empire Avenue Porter Estate Co. Brentwood, CA 94513 Oakley, CA 94561 Oakley Ranch, Inc. 215 Market Street San Francisco, CA Louise P. Giersch Jim Buell Dan L. Rink 150 Shady Lane City of Brentwood Stanford Research Institute Antioch, CA 94509 City Hall 333 Ravenswood Avenue Brentwood, CA 94513 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Charles Morgan Ray Ramirez 000040 P. O. Box 214 1233 Duffy Way Knightsen, CA 94548 Brentwood, CA 94513 Gertie Del Barba Lads T. Delin J. K. Cunningham Rose Avenue Bu nett oll n ' !��' �'�' 405 Sherwood Dr. Oakley, CA 94561 11 S e a do h Dr. Brentwood, CA 94513 Sun A ale, A 4087 - Gerald Continente Anthony do Mary Continente Richard C. Trudeau 753 Anderson Ave. 768 Balfour Road General Manager Brentwood, CA 94513 Brentwood CA 94513 East Bay-Reg. Park, Dist. 11500 Skyline Blvd. Oakland, CA .94619 X06 0MG: 03 99 TB: 36 69 Page 5? EC Public Hearing The Garin Company Mr. Eric Hasseltine Lea J. Marglon P.O. Drawer 1731 820 Camino Amigo Rt. 2, Box 100 Salinas, CA 93901 Danville, CA 94526 Cypress & Knightsen Oakley, CA 94561 Richard Harkett Jen Thayer R chel Baldacchi 311 Pippo Ave. Rt. 2, Box 199 P. 5 - to oad Brentwood, CA 94513 Oakley, CA 94561 'en, CA 9 4548 Bill Garen Bethel Island Municipal Bethel Island Municipal P.O. Box 1731 Improvement District Improvement District Salinas, CA 93901 V. Arthur Logan, President Ted Andronico P.O. Box 684 P.O. Box 58 Bethel Island, CA 94511 Bethel Island, CA 94511 Bethel Island Municipal W. J. Kenward, Vice Pres. Cliff Fleming Improvement District P.O. Box 467 P.O. Box 712 John V. Walsh Bethel Island, CA 94511 Bethel island, CA 94511 Drawer B Bethel Island, CA 94511 Thomas Holmes, Dis. Man. John McKoy, Dir. of Plan. CC Res. Conser. District and Programming 5552 Clayton Road ABAG Concord, CA 94521 Hotel Claremont Berkeley, CA 94705 Charles Cottril Route 1 Box 255CC Oakley, California 94561 000040 Lars T. Delin Rachel Baldoechi Burnett Bolloden P.O. Box 56 - Delta Road �- 1135 Shenandoah Drive I{nightsen, CA 94549 Sunnyvale, CA 94087 r Donald Piantanida : Barbara Guise Tiny Bettencourt 236 Oak Street 189 Sherwood Route 1, Box 116 Brentwood, CA 94513 Brentwood, CA 94513 Brentwood, CA 94513 t. Evo Baldoechi `` Earl & Louise Landrum Bruce Clegg Route 2, Box 187 Route 2, Box 120-C Route 1, Box A87 Oakley, CA 94561 = Oakley, CA 94561 r Brentwood, CA 94513 • Charles Pringle J. A. Bertrand ;•;' Jack Williams Route 2, Box 282 W r- P.O. Box 1189 rt P.O. Box 7769 Brentwood, CA 94513 Antioch, CA 94509 Stockton, CA 95207 151 _ '�t' j Y=_ -,t• �K .._. v fps: � +�s { kl+ ' 'j; ^„ £F ,i • /0- F i � -/�)o. 6 4 ! 4 asCOUn"� l ' :an lo3 s T . -ent vc # X x By JOHN VANLANDINGNAI[ Lesher News Raiem ,,KARTINEZ—Having been bypassed airing the`, -county growth boom of the last decade;Br+entwaod }�gyvavants to cash in on itbefore:the boomlaiies Aird itwas given another month Tuesday to sua(pot County Planning Commissioners that its and theirs,is the-best way. Brentwood.officials believe.their time has, ome•� .*ItM the saturation of the.Central-C'ouety iforciog: many people to travel east In search of homes; :And the-city has land available forhem totWid on,-`Tand viewed by commissioners as prime:firm.: l$ndi r The controversy over who should cotiti'W the future� tlev4lopment_ i:of this land surrounding the.city- eclispsed the,comm ,s�ion's bearing'headay on tbe: balapce of the proposed.new East;County I Gesemd -Plant. long-tune East County.resident,;Rachid"Bal- Mdocoi,a Bethel Island realtor and wife.oft ; sw,iancheri charged that the city preyiogal _ ied- __,k,t4e advantage of its growth opportunities., She accused city leaders of havin&tholvbeada in; the hand and only now pulling them'-out at the ex i nP !U,6,nth Pr East County communities 4 k �:�'r' _ ,a< z vim-max,;..y't�"' ,�• T FL_ J 5 �w4 H be v to. Save , ' ' Ael Fainvil a` nd AE an two years in the to far the presersa- # '_ ; tion,of 14A acmes of a ricuttural,�and fn,,Eastern Ck>lttra ttOsta' -CO Will be gfzea a public hearing tonight atMartinez r �' z}�tNe`proposal of the East bounty General Plan';,, -.0tizeus-Gommittee..will be submitted,as,an!amead- x runt"to°the general''plan_coverer'the'area.-frroin"_.= 'JBghet-Island-south.to the,county fine. - ',, The hearing uiII be,conducted, by the county's .'.-PUming:.comhhiW6n'at .7:30 p.m.., in-tlie,'county _b4din at Martinez - 1 -' 'The plan designates areas for'residential growth, 1agr ulturat use ,and;the:14,5Wacre;-agrtcultur-A' core area"where the minimum size:of'a parcel.of . '* r P:aperty:>would.be 14 acres.,Tt*,,W-ing properties sntaUer. than this wouldromain as:nopcaptorming ,Lace areas,for,residea s„would to desigoated at '&diel Island, Knigtitsen; Byron,°t?akley'and Brent: woad The proposals have stirred controwsy during the many public discussions the committee has held in the eastern part of the county. _ a Wow�� \/ DISTRIC_T OFFICES I ENTWOUD CL CENTRO f'110ENIX t k o.� � STAR LAZY' vr: 1 I E•i 0. DRAWER 1/JI• '•AtINAS. CALIFORNIA 9390 AREA CODE 406 • TELEPHONE SALINAS. 424 7633 L. D. PHONE SALINAS. 424.6711 August 11, 1976 Salinas, California 93901 Mr. Anthony Dehaesus IV__Director R E C E ED Contra Costa County 651 Pine Martinez, California 94553 AUG 12 1976 Re: General Land Use Plan City of Brentwood CU BOARD. UPERVISORS Garin Property �. . .Dei Dear Mr. Dehaesus: I have received a copy of the directive from the Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa County, which asks your staff to re- port on my request to have the Board adopt the proposals of the General Land Use Plan of the City of Brentwood and to bring the East County General Plan into conformance with the City's Plan. Please note that either I or our planning-consultants would be pleased to meet with members of your staff to assist in the completion of your report. In addition, Mr. James Buel, Planning Director, City of Brentwood, has also offered his assistance to your staff. We would appreciate being kept abreast of your findings and an opportunity to meet with you prior to submission of your report. Our thanks for your cooperation and attention. We look forward o to working with you. Sincerely yours, William 0. Garin j" The Garin Company cc:lContra Costa County - Board of Supervisors �� County Counsel 0000 /!0 Administration f Q'oa`.•�f yBFpn FOR YOUR INFORMATION % �. �. �MOAYO � uNlf(j �i In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California August 10 19 76 In the Matter of East County General Plan. e An August 2, 1976 memorandum having been received from Mr. Anthony A. Dehaesus, Director of Planning, in response to Board referral of the request of The Garin Company that the Board incorporate in the East County General Plan the proposals referred to in the General Land Use Plan of the City of Brentwood;. and Mr. Dehaesus having advised that public hearings on the East County General Plan will be scheduled before the Planning Commission following the completion of the draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Plan amendment; and Mr. Dehaesus having further advised that the comments of The Garin Company along with any other comments submitted will be taken into consideration at the public hearing; IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that receipt of the aforesaid report is ACKNOWLEDGED. PASSED by the Board on August 10, 1976. hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the dote aforesaid. cc• The Garin Company Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of • (with copy of report) Supervisors Director of Planning affixed this lOtbday of August 19 76 County Counsel J. R. OLSSON, Clerk By Deputy Clerk Robbie G6kierrez 000040 H -?4 ;176 t 5 m RECEIVED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT J. R. O::SON CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ONT 7A CO. By.... ..... ...... Deputy TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: August 2, 1976 FROM: Anthony A. Dehaesu SUBJECT: East County General Director of Planni g Plan Review This is in response to the July 27th Board referral of The Garin Com- pany's July 16, 1976 letter concerning the East County General Plan Review. The East County General Plan Review by the Citizens Committee appointed by the Board of Supervisors has been completed. The draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Plan amendment is nearing comple- tion. Following completion of the draft EIR, the Plan amendment as proposed by the Citizens Committee will then be scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission, at that time, will take into consideration The Garin Company's letter and any other material that is submitted to them during the course of their hearings in the matter. Following completion of their hearings, the Planning Commission will then forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to amend the General Plan for the area covered by the Citizens Committee's re- view. No action by the Board is necessary at this time except to acknowledge receipt of The Garin Company's letter. AAD:EMA cc - Supervisor Linscheid County Counsel County Administrator Aj 0000i t(j e,e, In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California July 27 , 19 76 In the Matter of General Land Use Plan, City of Brentwood. A July 16 , 1976 letter having been received from Mr. William 0 . Garin, President, The Garin Company, urging that the Board adopt the proposals of the General Land Use Plan of the City of Brentwood and bring the East County General Plan into conformance with the City's plan; IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid communication is REFERRED to the Director of Planning for report. PASSED by the Board on July 27, 1976 . 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc: The Garin Company Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of • P .O. Drawer 1731 Supervisors Salinas, California affixed thisZ Z r--h day of -711 14t 19 76 93901 Director of Planning County Counsel J. R. OLSSON, Clerk County Administrator gy Deputy Clerk Robbie GuWierrez 000040 H-24 3/76 15m DISTRICT OFFICES �/Y BRENTWOOD • EL CENTRO V / � PHOENIX TheoV ompany 0.(; � n STAR LAzy•G OFFICE•P O. DRAWER 1731• SALINAS. CALIFORNIA 93901 AREA CODE 408 ~A �. Salinas, California TELEPHONE SALINAS. 424-7633 July 16, 1976 L. D. PHONE SALINAS. 424-6711 RECEIVED Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County J U L 19 1976 651 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 J. R. OLSSON CERK BOA OF SUPERVISORS Ladies & Gentlemen: Re: General Land Use Plan C OSTA -0- •,NOUN Over the past fifty years The Garin Company has been an integral , active and 1 ding member of the agricultural industry in northern California. Much of our effort began in the area surrounding the City of Brentwood in Contra Costa County. Today, we have retained and are continuing to farm in excess of 600 acres in that area. The Garin Company obtains its total source of income through the agricultural industry and has no interest in real estate development. However, just as we continue to up- date and reassess our farming techniques, we also reassess our land use policies with the help of Whisler Patri , Planning Consultants in San Francisco. Our land holdings represent a major asset to our companytherefore, restrictions on its use will impose considerable hardship. We fear that such restrictions will be imposed on our land bounded by Balfour Road, Sellers Avenue, Brentwood Road and the easterly city limits of Brentwood if the East County General Plan is adopted. The East County General Plan proposes that the property noted above remain classified as intensive agriculture despite its immediate proximity to the city limits. There- fore, if this Pian were adopted, land uses would go directly from urban uses into in- tensive agricultural uses without the more realistic transition from urban zoning to less intense residential/commercial zoning before beginning intensive agricultural uses. While our entire existence is dependent upon having a sufficient amount of agricul- turally zoned land, that land must be correctly located. Our experiences have shown that farming on land directly adjacent to the urban core is economically unrealistic as normal (even controlled) growth of cities generally create land use pressures on adjacent properties which make the continued farming of our land uneconomical . Therefore, if we can not afford to economically farm our land, we would like to have 000040 (.�-rc.�t� ��'L2<� ��!' 'gyp,,•: �� 6rvI yti`� ��"� �Ju�i•LJ,�-LZJ'•'�7 `�Wu✓✓. UMlifp AfDAII i74"eu and Sls`lil�' (%Zo+i and 43i-� Ver NiiCfoI. :n�J with boord order �°°°� the realistic option to: 1 ) Farm the land until urban pressures increase, then, 2) Sell the land for an alternative use more related to controlled urban growth patterns appropriate to the needs of the city. In order to allow such change in use required by changing needs, appropriate land use classifications must be established to permit a gradual transition in land use; beginning with the most intense urban core to the less dense uses on the city fringes and then finally out to the agricultural uses. It is our feeling that the General Land Use Plan by the City of Brentwood proposes such a transition to the east and south while correctly directing more intense urban growth to the west in lower grade soil areas. The City's General Plan would permit a gradual transition of land uses, keep intensive agricultural land out where land values are lower (and thus affordable), permit the city to annex a limited amount of land for future growth and to provide tax revenues to the city for this land. By the same token, no significant encroachment on intensive agricultural lands would occur on a regional basis since the city's proposed "transitional area" shall be limited to a quarter mile from their current limits and since primary growth is already being directed westerly and southerly. In summary, we would urge the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors to adopt the propos- als of the General Land Use Plan for the City of Brentwood and to bring the East County General Plan into conformance with realistic local city needs. Very truly yours, THE GARIN COMPANY William 0. Garin President WOG:dz CC: 1 ) Mr. Stan Planchon, Chairman East County General Plan Advisory Committee 2) Planning Commission Contra Costa County 3) Mayor Joseph Cunningham City of Brentwood 000040